Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Two of my favorite heroes are Colin Byrne from Ain’t She Sweet by Susan Elizabeth Phillips and Luc Martineau from Rachel Gibson’s See Jane Score. I think the reason I love both these guys is because they are both smart mouths - I love me some smartass-y banter - and because they’re both real men, in their own very different ways. By this I mean they’re a bit dumb sometimes, stubborn, prideful, and occasionally baffled by the emotional ups and downs of the heroine. You know, male. I also like that they take the time to get to know the heroine. Sure, sexual attraction is part of that but they’re also emotionally drawn to her and fascinated and engaged on all levels - whether they know it or not in the early stages of the book. I have this theory that female sexuality is deeply linked to the notion of being desired (hence the fact that women don’t pay men for sex as much as men pay women for sex - who wants some guy pretending he’s into you?) So I guess my short answer is that a hero who is really into the heroine, who challenges her, who “gets” her, and, in the end, accepts and adores and knows her is what floats my boat. Feel free to quote me, but good luck editing down my rambly response!

I have no intention of trying to speak for all romance readers. For me, though, the hero and heroine should both have the classic “heroic” traits found in Beowulf, Robin Hood and Camelot. They should be brave and honorable and clever. Not always right, and not always temperate, but always willing to put it on the line. And a real love story demands that each be willing to sacrifice something, everything for the sake of the other.

Btw, I understand why you want to use “hero” for both male and female, and in other circumstances it might work fine, but when your main subject is Romance novels, the terms Hero and Heroine for the male and female protagonists are so ingrained I think it would be confusing not to use them.

for me brett lee and his wife are the perfect one

The heroic aspect shown in the romance genre that I admire consist of: a willingness to put all on the line for the other person.  This can be in the form of ‘heroic’ actions, i.e. the character who sacrifices their own safety for a loved one, or heroic words, i.e. the character who bears their thoughts for the advancement of the relationship. Both of these carry with them a caveat, “Don’t be stupid”.

It is not heroic for any character to put themselves in harms way, when there are rational options still open. Most Alpha male heroes I read fail on the ‘actions that won’t get them killed’ scale. Being heroic does not mean you are incapable of dialing 911. Out of female protagonists, I find that most are just as unable to be honest with their emotions as unable to see that they might be in a dangerous situation that they won’t survive. Likewise with the emotional sacrifice, there is a point between emotional honesty, and whining. The hero/heroine whose tortured soul is exposed over and over without any attempt to overcome it, is as irritating as the character who charges into a gunfight armed only with a baseball bat and a rampant case of *To Stupid To Live*itis.

As far as characters who I can think of that are both entertaining and rise above these pitfalls?  Brockmann’s Jules Cassidy shows a balance of forethought, and ability to be honest with himself and others regarding his emotions.  Nora Roberts’ (aka J.D. Robb) Eve Dallas is a prime example of a character who meets both criteria. She may hem and haw about her emotional woes, but her character does express her emotions to her significant other when necessary.

Starting with these criteria in someways would be a hinderance to authors.  Drama requires conflict, and conflict requires opposing viewpoints. Be that conflict be internal, (the unspoken love) or external (the hail of bullets from some unknown assailant), conflict provides the stage for characters to exist within. Thus if we only had characters who were heroic by that very narrow definition, many of my favorites would not exist.  I adore Bujold’s Miles Vorkosigan but the character acts not out of bravery, but a desire to prove himself “Heroic” often in a TSTL manner. Ilona Andrews’ Kate Daniels has a strong female protagonist who though she communicates to her mate, also dashes into danger with reckless disregard.

a.) yeah if any of this fills in a gap use it.
b.) Lyssa Lee

Some essential traits are a willingness to stand up against bullies (even of the I-Will-Kill-You kind). Even the most passive heroines will defend someone weaker. There are some exceptions for heroes, but usually only the dark and tortured kind. There are a lot of shades of gray when it comes to honor. Depending on where your standards are, Anne Bishop’s Daemon is either a murderous, dishonorable psycho, or the most loyal, honorable gentleman around. But I do think all heroes have some kind of honor code they live by, even if it occasionally allows for heinous actions. Perhaps he’s willing to kill adults, but would die for a child.

I generally dislike Alpha males because they’re often depicted as so aggressive and dominant as to willingly stomp all over the heroine’s opinions and desires. The Beast reversal towards the end of the book, when the hero finally agrees to respect his woman, is supposed to be the cherry on top of the happy ending. But by the time a book reaches that moment, I am thoroughly disgusted with the man. For me, an Alpha male is a man who can be aggressive and dominant, but also willing to laugh it off when a “weak woman” (rationally) disagrees and refuses to play lapdog. Essentially, I want two characters who can disagree with ferocity, but not turn it into a wrestling match the guy wins with his throbbing manliness. By the end of the book, I expect both characters to display rational adult thought and be able to compromise.

Also, staple of heroes everywhere…if your chica has some dark, sad secret she needs to get off her chest, you are automatically drafted to be the most understanding, comforting creature ever born. Failure to do so makes you an ass.

Possibly my favorite pairing, and as close to perfection as it can get: Kate Daniels & Curran from Ilona Andrews’ series. The battle of wills between the two are the epitome of two Alphas coming together without either descending into rage and possessiveness. Admittedly, some wrestling matches ensued, but with snarky banter instead of the grinding of groins. Except occasionally, ahem.

A) You can quote.
B) Tara Black

Off the top of my head, the most appealing hero and heroine I can think of are Joanna Bourne’s Grey and Annique from The Spymaster’s Lady. Annique is seven kinds of awesome: brave, smart, funny, and defiant. Grey has all these qualities too, except perhaps the defiance: he’s patient, kind, and determined. He knows what he needs to do to achieve his aims and he won’t stop until he gets there.

I’m well known for my dislike of weak heroines. It’s okay to need to be rescued once in a while—we have to let our heroes be heroic—but sitting around screaming is a ticket for one quick flight through the air before hitting the wall. (To quote Sir Terry of Pratchett: “She’s not the type to stand there screaming. She generally makes other people do that.”)

It’s perhaps easier to list the things that make a character unappealing, such as Being Bloody Stupid. It’s not about brains, it’s about not jumping to stupid conclusions, being selfish and cruel. A hero doesn’t have to rescue people from fires, he just needs to think about other people once in a while.

When I say that being brave is a good thing, it doesn’t have to be show-off heroics. It’s incredibly brave to open up and be vulnerable, to share your feelings, to risk humiliation and misery in the pursuit of what’s right. I want a hero who’ll risk his masculinity every now and then, and a heroine who’ll put on her big girl panties and own up to her faults.

A hero doesn’t have to be incredibly strong and handsome and manly. In fact, a little vulnerability is pretty desirable. Jane Lovering has a hero with cerebral palsy in Reversing over Liberace, but it’s not the physical flaw that matters, so much as the unavoidable effect it has on the way he deals with people, making him spiky and defiant. He’s not a physically strong character, but he can still come through for the heroine when she needs him. When he begins to care for her, he’ll do anything to make her happy.

Maybe that’s the key: a hero doesn’t have to be perfect, but he needs to be perfect for his heroine.

Maybe that’s the key: a hero doesn’t have to be perfect, but he needs to be perfect for his heroine.

Yep. And vice versa, of course.

Miles Vorkosigan has already been mentioned, and while I love Miles, I actually think the more “ideal” Bujold character you should be considering is Ekaterin - and of course Cordelia, but particularly Ekaterin. She’s been through hell, she’s still going through hell when we meet her, and yet she is unbowed, undaunted, definitely not TSTL. You can totally see why Miles falls for her so devastatingly hard.

In this day and age, feisty heroines are becoming the norm, and any author who fails to get with the program and write a girl with a mind of her own and the guts to speak it is going to lose readership pretty fast - unless she’s writing historicals, and yet still the girl needs to have a spine. After all, Lizzy Bennett is probably everyone’s favourite historical heroine, and no one could call her spineless.

My pet hate is “wet” heroines. I just click back to the Home screen on my Kindle and delete the book as soon as I find myself saying aloud the comment I think the heroine should have made instead of standing there with all the personality of a dead fish.

And yes, you can quote me: just Cathy if you please.

I was going to say integrity, but Miles brought me up short: he even (temporarily) misplaces that at the beginning of Memory. And still a hero among heroes.  I’m not sure there are essential qualities - my favourite of Brockmann’s Jules/Robin partnership ended up being Robin, who was really devoid of good qualities at the start of the story arc - an alcoholic in denial about both his addiction and his sexuality, who hurt the people close to him. He had good looks and courage but that was about it. (Now I’m trying to think of an uncourageous hero - maybe courage makes the ‘essential’ list?)

Personally, I love fidelity in a hero - any story where the hero loves the heroine for years completely floats my boat. (Devin MacKade by Roberts, Leader of the Pack by Davis, If wishes were horses by Duncan etc. etc. In real life it might be stalkerish and creepy, but in fiction it’s appealing.)

With heroines, I like much more down-to-earth qualities like intelligence, commonsense, self-control. Ekaterin has all of those: she’s a sensible woman. I think a lot of Georgette Heyer’s heroines would be like that too - sensible pretty much describes Frederica, for instance.

Briefly - both hero and heroine need to have something to learn. A rock solid moral system, which doesn’t have to be the same as everyone else’s, but does have to have standards that they cling to.
But I want to take the journey with them, to see them learn about themselves and each other. Perfection isn’t something I’m looking for in a romance hero or heroine.

Georgette Heyer pretty much nailed it. Stupid? Maybe some people would call Kitty Charing or Hero Wantage stupid. I wouldn’t, and they’re endearing and adorable, too. Arabella is a feisty heroine (without the anachronistic monicker) and Abby is conventional, sweet and totally out of her depth with the unconventional, rough Miles. But she stands up to him and they make a terrific couple.
And Venetia and Damerel? Do I need to say more?

I think Jennifer Crusie heroines like Nell in Fast Women and Min in Bet Me and most of the Goodnight women in Faking It are my favorites because they’re grounded in reality. 

They’d be the first to defend themselves against
the romance hero if he ventures into stalkerdom.  They go through a lot more angst because they aren’t willing to let the plot lead them by the nose.  And, often, other things in their lives are more important than romance.  Seriously.

These are not women who will forget about saving the family farm just because they’ve had an orgasm—-or even The Orgasm.  These are women who will shake the heroes off their legs (reluctantly) because they want to concentrate on saving the farm first.  Preferably with the heroes help (or they aren’t heroes).

I like that.

a) Sure.
b)Sarah Wesson

I too have to fall back on Lois McMaster Bujold’s characters.  Miles, Ekaterin, Cordelia, Aral, Gregor, even “Ivan-You-Idiot!” all display the qualities I look for in heroes.  They’re human and they make mistakes, but they rise to the occasion and most of the time act with honor, integrity, and a deep and wide ocean of caring for the people around them.

I’m also a fan of “beta” heroes, the ones who, as one author said, “Make sure she has snow tires on her car.”  The guys who aren’t over the top, but show up and get the job done.  They remind me of my father and my husband. 

a)Yes, and b)Darlene Marshall

If we’re talking about a book as a total package, then the most important thing a hero (or heroine) can have is dimension. But if they don’t, that could be the fault of poor writing, which isn’t really the question…but if they don’t have depth of character, they probably aren’t well motivated, and if they aren’t well-motivated, they probably behave irrationally, and so on until…ass hat.

But if we’re talking about hero and heroines in a vacuum and assuming they inhabit well-written books and we’re just talking personality traits… I like damaged characters. Not heroes who’ve been done wrong by their ex-wives and now distrust all women. And not heroines who’ve fallen victim to the old “let’s chuck a dead baby in her past to give her some issues” trope. Just genuinely interesting skeletons in the closet, ones that directly shape the way the characters view their world and the people they interact with. They don’t have to be crazy-dark secrets or indelible childhood traumas, and the characters don’t need to be utterly tortured about them. But a good quirk makes for a well-rounded, believably imperfect character, and be they alpha, beta, etcetera, I will happily read their story.

Oh and incidentally, heroines and heroes alike, pathological stubbornness is neither spunky nor manful. As a reader, it’s really annoying to watch two people refuse to budge on anything until one saves the other’s life on page 396 then they fold like umbrellas.

a) sure, if any of that was comprehensible
b) Meg Maguire

You may quote me as either Diatryma or Catherine Krahe.

In books with danger, I require the heroine to save her own damned self.  Eve Dallas, Mercy Thompson, a whole slew of Nora Roberts and Susan Andersen heroines, all good.  They discover who the villain is when said villain has them cornered and, while help may be on the way, it’s not going to get there in time.  So they defend themselves, they save the day, and when the cavalry arrives, it’s to pull them off the battered villain and mop up the blood.  Eve Dallas does not damsel.

I really have a thing for heroes who… come through? fix things?  Let’s go with fix things.  Jennifer Crusie’s Shane and Cal are both these people.  A hero who doesn’t necessarily save the day, but saves dinner, is wonderful.  Especially in Nora Roberts books, I do think of it as the heroine and the romantic lead; many of her books are very much about the women, and a man who is not only willing to be support staff but really good at it shines. 

I also have a thing for PTSD heroes, which is problematic.  In historicals especially, I like misanthropes who have reasons, the ones who have been hurt and snarl at the world because they haven’t figured out how else to interact with it.  I can’t extrapolate that to heroines because I’m not sure I’ve actually read any, and I’m not sure the so-PTSD-it’s-sexy would apply to contemporary books because hey, we have some mental health resources, you can use them. 

I like resourceful heroines, clever ones.  I adore families on both sides—why I like Nora Roberts, Reason Two. 

I think that, at least for contemporaries, I prefer the book to be about the heroine and her strength.  I’ve described Crusie’s books as getting your dog and getting your house and once you’ve done that, life is good and you probably get a man as a reward.  Historicals can be more hero-focused, but I need a functional power dynamic between the two of them.

oh, I struggled a bit when I was thinking about ” Instant orgasms?” but then I thought ‘wham, bam thank you mam’, so no, that’s not it.

Loretta Chase did it all for me with Jessica and Dain in Lord of Scoundrels. Both of them smart. Intelligent.  Not about everything, not all-knowing, but clever enough not to ever get to the characters who are too stupid to live section of your local library.

Can we please keep heroine? First and foremost because I love reading reviews where it’s spelt heroin, LMAO! (that works for me every time, I’m sooo easy).
And because heroes makes me think more than one male and that’s a whole different trope.

The best heroes and heroines, in romances, for me, aren’t superheroes. They’re not perfect. They’re not always honest or courageous or perky or voluptuous.  Sometimes they screw up. Horribly screw up. During the pages of the romance.

What makes a hero so heroic in the romance, for me, is not just how he overcomes his own screw-ups. It is how he handles the heroine’s. If he can love her because of her flaws and not just in spite of them, then I swoon right along with her.

whether they be male or female my fav book heroes have following characteristics and they just DO IT for me:

1. Humor. A character that can laugh at themselves and the world around them.
2.Morality. Lynne Connelly mentioned this and I am in agreement. A code of sorts, its theirs and they stick to it.
3. Flaws. Who the hell wants perfection?
4. Determination.I love a character that just won’t quit. No matter how many times they get knocked down they drag their asses up and just keep going.
5.Sexuality. By this I mean, knowing what and who turns them on and being comfortable with that.
6.Strength. Not just physical but also mental.

a) sure (God knows why!)
b) Marg will be fine

I like the same traits in both, I think.

Intelligence: not necessarily education or scholarly aptitude, though that can be very cool, but being able to think through things.

Competence: not being good at everything, but being good at at least one or two things that affect the plot. In general, being able to pull the finger out and Deal With Things rather than flailing about like so much animated spaghetti.

And Dealing With Things includes their past. I do not like Trauma Girl. I have less experience with Trauma Guy, but I don’t think I like him much either.

Bravery: as distinct from machismo, which I loathe. Both the hero and heroine should be willing to step up and get things done when need be, even if they’re scared.

Outside interests: no, seriously. Both main characters should have goals that don’t revolve around getting into bed with each other. I like romances where the relationship *enhances* both lives, not completes them—I had a complete life when I was single, thanks.

I loathe machismo—and wangst, conversely—as well as jealousy/possessiveness/controlling behavior in general.

And I want the hero to be hot. ;)

Feel free to quote: Isabel Cooper.

Great idea for a book, and with your style it is sure to be gorgeous.
Eve Dallas/Roarke relationship comes up as a major favorite of mine, what woman doesn’t want a man who accepts her as she is, and confronts and understands her demon’s. There is something about everything that Nora Roberts has written in the last ten years that has a particular resonance. 
Love Suzanne Brockmann’s heroes. Though as a single Australian girl doubt there are many US Marines in my non-literary future. I adore reading about men of action which is why my manuscript has a special forces hero rather than a slacker surfer i.e. the men I actually know. I think that in a lot of cases the men we love reading about would be very inconvenient in real life. Adrenaline junkies might find the fact I like to sleep in until 12 on both Saturday and Sunday slightly incompatible.
Totally get the heroine thing, had to write it in a synopsis and it just looks wrong, but it is the common terminology.
Fantastic to read about everyone’s favorites, makes me want to read some books all over again.

There is an argument for calling both women and men hero - it is found in history.  check out early female literary fairy tale and their relationship to literary history of the Greek myths.  There are plenty of books out there to help you construct the hero (both in masculine and feminine terms).

Also, you may want to consider Terry Eagleton’s position of the evolution of literature - he states that culture motivates literature.
Hope that helps a bit.

I want both the hero and the heroine to be decisive, driven, and hard-working.  Men and women of action.  Blue collar or lower class, please.  I love flawed, wounded characters who overcome obstacles and come out stronger.  I also like to see a hint of loneliness or vulnerability.  They might resist falling in love, but deep down they crave an emotional connection and physical contact.

Here are some characters who come to mind:

Derek Craven from Lisa Kleypas’s Dreaming of You. A Cockney hero born in the gutter becomes a self-made man.

Rachel and Gabe from Susan Elizabeth Phillips’ Dream a Little Dream.  Starving homeless mom and grieving widower.  Oh, the angst!

Grace and Ethan from Nora Roberts’ Rising Tides.  Struggling single mom and strong, silent hero w/ traumatic childhood.  Love it.

Of course you can quote me.

I may be in the minority here, I enjoy reading about dudes in books that I would never, ever, EVER date in real life. For example, Dain from Lord of Scoundrels makes me swoon, although I think I could never handle a guy with that kind of crippling insecurity and other emotional issues. I also love reading about the wolfy Lykae heroes from Kresley Cole’s Immortals After Dark series, even though they blur the line between protective and overbearing.  I guess it’s because all romance novels are a bit of escapism, so I’m not really looking for anything I could get in real life. For example, my husband, who I love madly, is short - and so it’s a bit of a thrill to read about super tall men.

I do have SOME limits, though. Edward Cullen can go perform his sparkly fang c-sections on another victim, thanks.

As for a heroine, it doesn’t matter to me who she is, what she does, or what she looks like, as long as she’s smart. Nothing is as big of a dealbreaker as TSTL Syndrome.

Oh, and you can quote me, for sure!

Got one more hero name to throw out there:  Atticus Finch.  Every time I read the scene in To Kill a Mockingbird where Rev. Sykes says, “Miss Jean Louise, stand up.  Your father’s passin’.” I bawl like a baby. 

Atticus is a hero for the ages.

Darlene

I want my heroes to be willing to change their minds and their behavior and my heroines to be unwilling to back down or be silenced.

This gives the story a fighting chance to be shaped by both protagonists equally, when it’s set in a world where men are supposed to do everything and women are supposed to go along with it.

(You can tell I don’t like alpha heroes…)

you can quote me as dorothea.

You may quote me: 
I like faithfulness.  This is to say that one of the characters doesn’t leave the other hanging.  I know there wouldn’t be a story, but I like the plot twist where the main characters help one another out.  That is one of the main reasons that I read romance.  Someone gets saved from one ill or another, bond over the experience, and at the end of the book, one knows that they’ll have one another’s back for the rest of their lives.  I especially like romances where the hero needs saving by the heroine.  Having a guy learn something is a bonus.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your chapter.

I want strength without arrogance, some kind of vulnerability, and a sense of humor. No perfection. I want to see what they do when they’re NOT doing what they’re trained for.

Terry
Terry’s Place
Romance with a Twist—of Mystery

As corny as it sounds, “Love conquers all” The essential quality is hope and faith either emerge victorious or go down swinging. A real hero has some underdog qualities but labors on

There are so many variations in character—as many as there are books!—that I’d find it hard to point to specific personality traits that really make a hero or heroine (or heroin) for me.  I loved uber-alpha Dain in Lord of Scoundrels; I also loved sweet beta James in Sally MacKenzie’s Naked Duke. 

In terms of character, what really works for me is when the hero is open to change (because, let’s face it, the hero’s usually the one who’s more screwed up).  This can develop over the course of the book, because characters saddled with flaws are interesting and human. In fact, from a plot standpoint, I think the strongest romance is when the hero and heroine help each other overcome the obstacles to their relationship.  That shows the reader the ways in which they are perfect for each other.

Sarah, I’m glad to know there’s going to be a follow-up to Beyond Heaving Bosoms!  If this helps you, sure, you can quote me.

Word verification:  cars78.  I think I have watched CARS 78 times with my daughter.  (I mistyped it CZARS at first.  That’s a whole different kind of movie.)

My favorite heroes and heroines each have the ability to see their counterpart without rose colored glasses.  They have the ability to see all sides of their mate and accept those sides - even the ones they don’t like.  Maybe, especially the ones they don’t like or find comfortable.

Also, my favs are willing to risk something of their own, or be willing to step outside their comfort zone in hopes - but no gurarantee - of making the relationship work.

Some of my all time favorites are:  Robb/Roberts - Eve & Rourke, and The Chesapeak Bay Couples; Brockmann’s Sam & Alyssa; and Crusie/Mayer’s Agnes & Shane; and Crusie’s Sopie & Phin.

I love that Roarke understands that he lives with His Lieutenant and His Darling Eve and he “gets” them both and can’t have one without the other.  He let his world grow to include her world and her people.  She does the same for him. She gets that he owns have the world and has a somwhat nefarious past.  She expands her world for him.

I read romances in many genres and time periods, and if the characters are right, it works for me. 

Nothing much that hasn’t been said, but use at will and quote as noted.

Mr. Darcy has always been the epitome of romantic hero for me. He’s intelligent, confident, outspoken, loves his family, protective of his sister, take charge yet cool in a crisis, undyingly loyal, proud but not so proud that he won’t eat both of his feet if the occasion calls for it, and unabashadly in love with me. I mean, Elizabeth Bennett.

The fact that he was wealthy and drop dead gorgeous was just icing on the cake.  He could be just as rich and look the same (in my mind, obviously) and if he’d acted like an asshat the whole time, I probably would’ve thought less of the looks.  Which was kind of the point of the book, I guess.

As for heroines, I like strong female characters. I don’t mean strong as in physically strong or even strong personality types. I mean, she doesn’t just sit around and wait for someone to come along and do things for her. She’s capable of taking care of herself. She may not want to go to the movies by herself, but when push comes to shove, she would rather catch a matinee and dinner alone than sit at home whining about it.  She may want to be married and have a family, but she’s not desperate enough to take the first low-ball offer that comes her way.  I guess really, my “perfect” romantic heroine would share a lot of the same traits as Darcy, too.  They’re just well-rounded, fleshed out people who fit well together, but have their own personalities outside of coupledom, too.

The most common traits I’ve seen in romance are loyalty, strength, bravery, and honesty (at least by the end of it.) But that doesn’t necessarily mean they are the most essential traits.

For me, what makes an ideal romantic hero and heroine isn’t individual traits but what they become when they get together. Take Sheridan and Olympia in Laura Kinsale’s Seize the Fire. In Sheridan you have this false hero, a liar, thief, coward, a broken man. Olympia is wimpy, gullible and ignorant. Yet together they change, they become stronger, they pull from each other the admirable qualities that were hiding within themselves. In the end Sheridan is brave, loyal, and honest, and Olympia is strong, independent, a leader. Sheridan and Olympia shore each other up. Each makes the other a better person. They may be able to live without each other but they wouldn’t be whole. In short, they function better together than apart. And that is wildly romantic. Any romance that can show that sort of connection is one I bow down to and remember always.

Yes, you can quote me.

Count me in on the love of Nora Roberts’ lead characters. In particular, I absolutely adore Ford and Cilla from Tribute—and Ford, specifically, because the man is Of My Tribe. He is a geek, and I love it. When Cilla tells him that love is her Kryptonite, he starts half-seriously inquiring what kind, and he owns both versions of Battlestar Galactica on DVD. Bonus points for him being entirely comfortable with Cilla being the more physically aggressive of the two of them, the one who does all the traditionally “masculine” work of house demolition.

Ford’s got several of the attributes I find appealing in a romance novel hero, in general: he’s handsome, but at a realistic level; he’s creative; he’s funny; he’s comfortable enough with his masculinity that Cilla’s not a threat to it; and when push comes to shove, he’s willing to risk himself for her. The only way this guy could have been at all more swoonable to me is if he’d also been a guitar player, and possibly from Newfoundland or Ireland. ;)

Oh, and if you’d like a general word to describe both hero and heroine, might I suggest ‘protagonist’?

I totally get the desire to use “hero” for both, and also why it probably won’t work out… might I suggest throwing the term “heroic traits” around a bit in order to make the whole thing a bit less gendered?
~~
(I wrote this up in notepad, and I had to laugh as I skimmed through the comments as I made my way down to the comment box - mine’s kind of the opposite of one many people have cited as absolutely necessary! Also, I would never have thought of them off the top of my head but since Jill brought them up, I’d say that Grace and Ethan kind of do and also kind of don’t fit into what I’m about to say.)

This is kind of off-topic but kind of not - or perhaps just more specific than I think you’re asking for - but I think one of the things that has long fascinated me about heroes is the idea of a character who is both the villain and the hero in the story. The genre features a lot of redemption, but what I’m talking about here is more than just a character overcoming his difficulties and becoming a better person in and of himself; it’s about the character who is the villain at the beginning of the book but, by the end of it, has become the hero (and not just by virtue of his being the male love interest). There are quite a few examples of this, but I think the book that truly embraces it the most is To Have and To Hold. At the beginning of the story, there is no clearly defined outside enemy - sure, we know that Rachel is innocent of her husband’s murder and that the true culprit is out there somewhere, but there’s no focus on finding out who did it. We all know that in old-school romances, the hero is often not the enemy because he’s the more attractive rapist, but in Sebastian’s case, he is the only rapist. He is the only person threatening Rachel, and as such there is no denying the fact that, for the first part of the book, he is the bad guy.

He has already begun to change when the outside enemy is introduced, but is still playing the part of the villain. When he finally reaches the point of change, the external pressure provided by the second villain and the internal pressure provided by his awakened conscience, united, are enough to overpower his determined indifference, and he turns into a hero right before our eyes.

Sebastian is a very extreme case, but exemplifies a specific trope within the genre: that of the of the villain-hero, the man who is completely transformed over the course of the book. I think that the trope itself developed because it provides an intensified version of the hero who can fulfill various roles within the narrative. In most romances, the hero does take on various, usually conflicting, roles: he’s both the aggressor and the one who provides comfort, and though the sexual tension between him and the heroine is almost palpable, he’s also the one person she’s most able to relax and be herself around. Sebastian certainly has conflicting roles within the story, occupying both ends of the spectrum of good and evil relative to his heroine. The roles are stark, incredibly intense, and easily identifiable.

So I guess in answer to your general question: I think one common, if not the most common trait among romance heroes is versatility, the ability to be all that the heroine needs. And in answer to your question about specific types, sometimes that versatility extends into being something that the heroine explicitly does not need, at which point he occupies the role of the villain, and at which point he is the type of character I find utterly fascinating.

Given that I’ve just classified the heroes of the entire genre solely in relation to their love interests… I can’t really do the same for the heroines. But I can say that when paired with a villain-heroes, the only truly necessary trait in a heroine is that she is a catalyst for his change. She does not compel him to change, but rather, is compelling enough to make him do so on his own.

Oh, and the one thing I hate most of all but most readers must still enjoy because it happens in damn near every book: the hero who has slept around a lot more than the heroine. The other day I read a book in which the hero hadn’t had sex in three and a half years, and the heroine had, and I literally could not stop smiling about it because I am so so so so so so so so so so there are not enough so’s in the world sick of heroes with more sexual experience. Gaaaaah.

I think the ability to learn and grow is one of the most important traits a hero/heroine can have. I don’t think its a typical trait but honestly, if you don’t have at least one character who grows during the novel (preferably both), then you have a crappy book. If I want to see people who keep making the same mistakes over and over, I can look at real life.

I would read “hero” as masculine only unless it was stated otherwise (like you explained in this post.) But since you did state it, I would understand that it described both genders in the rest of the book.

I’m commenting again just because I forgot to include my email in my previous post.

For me, the most important quality in a hero is strength.  Not the ability to bench press the equivalent weight of an elephant, but strength to deal with whatever challenges life slams in his face.  I want to know that this hero isn’t going to run - that he’s going to be standing by the heroine’s side no matter what hits, no matter how tough it gets, fighting for their relationship.

I like different characters for different reasons, so I will list and explain each.  At the bottom I will sum up what I lilke in a character. 

Suzanne Brockmann:
    Jules—He is so strong, and so funny.  Jules has been burned before in love, but he still has such a huge capacity for love.  I also admire how Jules is committed to staying out, and has trouble when Ben, a marine fully in the closet, wants a relationship with him, but cannot/will not come out, even to his family.  This is Jules sticking point, and sometimes he is close to faltering, but he works through it, both with Ben and Robin.  On the outside Jules is all tough FBI agent, but when it comes to Robin and their relationship, he is insanely vulnerable because of a past relationship with a lying, cheating bastard.  Jules gets through his dilemma with the help of his best friends, and it is his ability to elicit help from those he cares about and who care about him. 

    Sam—The reason I love Sam is because he is a self-proclaimed asshole; after butting into a conversation between Jules and Robin; ” Yeah, I was just practicing being an asshole.  It takes hard work and constant dedication to my craft to excel the way I do.”  Things just come out of his mouth.  This is a trait that I would hate in real life, but on Sam it is endearing.  He knows his limitations, and Lys loves him and them and in return, he loves Alyssa with all his heart.  However, his love is not enough to overrule his inner code because even with this love, he still marries Mary Lou because he knocks her up. 

J.D. Robb:
    Roarke—If Roarke only did one thing to make me love him, it would be how he holds Eve after she has a nightmare.  Eve will take solace in his arms for just the bare minimum of time, until she is just barely under control; then she pulls away.  But Roarke doesn’t let her go!  He continues to hold on to Eve until she is clam, but also until he himself is calm.  He absolutely, 100% needs Eve; without her, he is empty.  Because he came from nothing, he enjoys giving, and needs to give, especially his love.  He and Eve fight, with two people used to caring only about themselves who now are so enmeshed with another, impossible not to.  However, the majority of the arguments are not over trivial things.  The two argue, most often, out of fear: one doesn’t want the other to put him- or herself into any danger. 
    Eve—Being a cop is an essential part of her identity.  Like Brockmann’s Jules, she has a tough exterior that hides an inner vulnerability.  The strong, capable woman needs Roarke to help her deal with her vulnerability due to her past.  Even if it was at first (and still to an extent) reluctantly, she lets Roarke help her.  I love the strong woman letting her guard down and letting the one she loves help her.  Also, Eve shows so much growth as a character.  She goes from the first book having only Mavis as her friend, a task that most likely fell completely on Mavis to create, and Feeney as a mentor to being friends with Mavis, Leonardo, Peabody, McNab, Nadine, Louise, Charles, Morris, Feeney, and, even though she scares Eve, Trina. 

    McNab—McNab is so funny!  He is like a middle schooler who expresses his attraction by teasing and annoying the one he likes.  McNab is human—he gets jealous, he is slightly possessive, and most importantly, he loves Peabody so much. 
    Peabody—A grade a suck-up if there ever was one, Peabody is quick to add to the conversation with a bit of snark.  However, she is extremely dedicated to becoming a detective.  For all that she has the outward appearance of a steady, albeit prickly, cop, inside she is both very sensitive and very funny.  She takes offense easily, but also forgives easily; her emotions are worn on her sleeve and she is perfectly fine with this. 

Tamora Pierce
    Alanna—This is a different type of lead than the others.  First, Alanna is from a YA book; second, this book is fantasy with a romance plot because it is part of growing up.  Alanna will always be my favorite.  Disguising herself as a boy, Alanna goes through the training to become a knight.  Not only does she triumph over the obstacles placed in front of her (a war, an evil royal duke, and the same evil duke raised from the dead by her twin brother to name a few), but she proves to everyone that a woman can not only keep up with the men, but that she can best them.  To me, Alanna is the embodiment of a strong female who is able to balance being a warrior with being a woman.  Even if the later is not wanted at first and has to be coaxed out of hiding. 
    George—It is impossible to not at least give a bit of space to George.  When the reader first meets George, he is the Rogue, the King of Thieves, and by the end of Alanna’s story, he is pardoned for all of his crimes and is given a barony for all of the good deeds he did for the crown.  This transformation is made because of the changes he makes in his lifestyle and his decision to help Alanna because he loves her.  Robb’s Roarke also makes a similar transformation from being the big man on the opposite side of the law from his love to helping his love who stands firmly on and for the law.  The reformed man is seductive, but only when the man makes the choice to change for his love, not when the partner works so hard to change him.  The change is possible when the love he has for his partner is stronger than the desire to thieve, when he loves her/him more than he loves his previous life. 

I really do not care who the traits belong to, man or woman, just that they exist.  To reduce the confusion of pronouns, I am going to use the gender most often associated with the traits; keep in mind, though, that the pronouns are interchangeable.  A common element to all of my favorites is that they are part of a series.  None of my favorite characters are part of standalone novels and this is because reoccurring characters in a series mature differently and over a larger time, enabling the reader to get to know them more intimately, like a long-time friend as opposed to a new acquaintance. 

Looking at this list, In my heroes I want someone who is strong but not afraid to let others help him deal with his weaknesses.  I have a soft spot for what I call the “Lean on Me” men, ones who “swallow their pride” and ask for help.  “Lean on Me” also represents my ideal relationship in both fiction and in real life; the give and take of support is necessary to hold two people together. 

Especially in action/suspense novels, a sense of humor is key.  Too much tension makes me jittery and anxious, but add humor into the mix, and the story is much more enjoyable. 

As mentioned previously, the man who reforms because his love for a woman is greater than anything else.  This devotion is so comforting because you, as the one for which these “bad habits” have been given up, know that no matter what happens, you will always be loved. 

A character has to have strength, to have a code to which she adheres.  This strength allows her to live through tough times, face adversity, and achieve greatness.  This greatness is more an inner greatness, one that is achieved when one meets one’s own goal, not by becoming the most powerful because that is what society says is greatness. 

Feel free to take any of this and quote me.  If you choose to, email me and I will give you my name.

This may say something about me that I should really be working out in therapy but ... the stories that stay with me are the ones where the hero and/or heroine is damaged or traumatized some way and the counterpart recognizes that and is able to heal them or at least recognize their underlying worth (yes, I know, this is classic Mighty Wang and Magic Hoo-Hoo!). Examples would include Beatrix Hathaway/Christopher Phelan from Lisa Kleypas’ Love in the Afternoon and Gabriella Banning/Nick DeVane from karen Robards’ Scandalous. I’m also fond of the underdog heroine, the mousy, overlooked or perhaps uptight spinster whom the hero recognizes as a Real Woman. In contemporaries, I like funny and mostly self-confident—Jennifer Crusie types.
a) why not?
b) Nancy Klingener

I admit I have it bad for angry boner guy. I would kill such a man in real life, but oh… Shannon McKenna what have you wrought?
That being said, what Darlene said: Atticus Finch quiet, moral, strong. You know that he’s seen the evil of the world, but it hasn’t gotten the best of him. He does what he can to protect his family as well as teach them a better way.
Another thing I look for? Caretaking. One of Barbara Delinsky’s early books (actually, I think this occured in more than one) featured a scene with the heroine having a particularily difficult crampy period, and the hero ignores her excuses for not seeing him, & comes over to rub her tummy & caretake like crazy. Maybe it’s being a single woman, but there’s something about caretaking obvious & subtle that just gets me. Removing slivers of glass from your ass without being an ass. Soup & fresh bedding for the fevered character. New tires. Snow shoveling. Clean laundry. Remembering how someone likes their coffee, or that they don’t like coffee. The little things that say he/she is paying attention.
a. yes
b. Donna Powell

If I like the book I’m reading well enough to finish it, the hero and heroine of that book are what I’m looking for as good examples of a hero and heroine, otherwise I wouldn’t finish the book.  It must be obvious therefore, that I think trying to decide what characteristics make the best hero or the best heroine depends almost entirely upon the author’s ability to convince me.  Some otherwise unadmirable people, through the author’s wizardry, make great heroes and/or great heroines.

I love both alpha and beta heroes. Powerful guys who are ruthless when it comes to getting what they want but are loving when it comes to the heroine. Normal every day guys who are sweet and funny making their physical hotness even more so!

For heroines I love strong women who are ACTUALLY strong as opposed to just angry/bitchy.  Women who will stand up to the hero without trying to one up him or prove they’re stronger than the man. A woman who TRULY wants to be a man’s equal.

My name is Nancy, and yep, you can quote me on that!

For heroes, I respond best to a confident guy who aggressively and persistently pursues the heroine—and has eyes for no one else—but respects her enough not to cross the line into stalking or rape. I want to feel that he will pursue her through hell and high water, but if she says NO, he will back off, because he loves her and would not dream of hurting her.

I once briefly dated a guy who was passive and quite timid about pressing his suit. He kept apologizing for “being too forward” when the whole time I was thinking, “dude, be more forward, PLEASE.” Finally I walked because I didn’t feel desired, and if I don’t feel desired, my sex drive doesn’t turn on.

So a certain amount of assertiveness and obvious desire for the heroine is a requirement, but I’m equally turned off by guys who don’t respect boundaries. No Edward Cullen types for me.

Protectiveness is also an essential trait; the hero needs to demonstrate at least once during the course of the novel that he’s willing and able to protect the heroine.

For heroines, I want someone strong and feisty. I prefer that she’s not an extraordinary beauty, because I relate better to more ordinary-looking heroines, but the physical characteristics aren’t terribly important. (I don’t demand that the hero be physically amazing either.) It’s essentially that she be able to stand up the hero. The ideal dynamic for me is an assertive alpha male hero who falls in love with the one woman who isn’t intimidated by him and who’s strong enough to put him in his place once in a while.

Oh, and Anna’s example of Ford from Tribute. Yeah, that guy. I’d take that guy in a heart beat.

chemistry between people is the best thing, hands down

that being said:

Gillian and Christopher from This is What I ask from Lynn Kurland.
Two emotionally wrecked individuals are thrown together by a promise made to her older brother. Neither trusts the other and both have PTSD.
When she nearly dies he feels as if he’s obligated to nurse her back to health. During her feverish babblings he realizes she’s just as damaged as he is and is shocked by the notion that they’re both in the same boat and he’s not completely alone.
Swoony swoony swoon swoon.

Paulina Poriskova and Ric Ocasek
Grouchy and broodish meets outgoing and bubbly. I imagine she’s the only one to regularly pooh-pooh him and get away with it.

LOL and Atticus is hot. I was just thinking about him yesterday.

I think Jennifer Crusie heroines like Nell in Fast Women and Min in Bet Me and most of the Goodnight women in Faking It are my favorites because they’re grounded in reality. 

I completely agree with you.  Both heroes and heroines should be in some essential way grounded in the real world.  If I can’t identify with the heroine, I have trouble staying with a book.  I’m not saying that she needs to be like me (because that would be boring—every single heroine is an American graduate student, which would be really interesting in an historical), but she needs to be someone that I could realistically meet in real life.  Bookstore owner, doctor, lawyer, stay at home mom? Sure.  Genius supermodel that can speak 5 languages and knows several versions of martial art?  Not so much.

As for heroes, I tend to like physically and emotionally wounded ones (wonder what that says about me).  This is probably why I like the Quinn series by Nora Roberts.  Its also why I’m drawn to Dain in Lord of Scoundrels.  My favorite hero is Paul Candelanno from Knowing You.  He’s not wounded in the same way as the Quinns and Dain; he’s got more of an inferiority complex than anything else.  He believes that his family values his twin brother, Nick, more than they do him, so he never tells them about his big accomplishments (his mother still thinks that he’s a struggling scientist when he could retire and never have to work again if he wanted).  It takes Stevie to make him realize that his brother isn’t better than him—that they’re just different.

There are some overall characteristics that I like in my heroes (other than being wounded).  I think the hero needs to be loyal—to his heroine, his friends, his family etc.  He also needs to be somewhat intelligent.  My biggest pet peeve is when the hero is tstl (I don’t much like it in the heroines either).  He doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist, but he needs to possess some common sense.  One of the biggest things for me, though, is that while the hero is more than likely to stop to help someone, he isn’t going to do something that would cause him to sacrifice himself to do it.  I don’t want to worry that the HEA will be in jeopardy every other day because he had to run into that burning building to save the litter of puppies that are inside it.

A) yes
B) Liz

I HATE it when the orgasms are instant or the sex is described as cosmic (read Linda Lael Miller for instance). Even the best lovers in the world are clumsy or just not that into it once in a while. I understand that the story is an escape, but all it does is make me wonder what the hell is wrong with me. And then I remember that I’m reading what somebody thinks is my fantasy or there own at the very least.

An awesome hero/heroine is somebody that will protect their family at all costs, stand up to each other and willing to be vulnerable.

Please god could they just not be morons? That’s all I ask. Really.

Trust. If the characters, male or female are smart enough not to trust on the first few pages and the author has taken time to build trust so that when it’s time to trust our hero or heroine within the plot it’s believable and you can understand the heroic courage it takes for her or him to put their trust in the other to overcome whatever dastardly deeds the bad guy is throwing at them.

If I read the words “trust me” within the first few chapters , I pretty much know the author wants to be the hero of the story, not the characters or their development.

For me, the most important characteristic in a hero is very prosaic - I need him to be competent.  Whatever the crisis is, I need him to be the character that you know you could turn to and he would be able to respond.  Heroes that embody this for me are Jamie Fraser (Outlander), Rupert Carsington (Mr Impossible), Charles Rivenhall (The Grand Sophy).

I’ll echo Liz because I think Mr. Darcy is probably the closest I can get to the template of my favorite type of hero, but I’ll add to say that Elizabeth Bennett also represents all that I want to see in a heroine.

Sidebar to say that I think you may have a problem using “hero” for both the male and female protagonists only because, at least for me, I have different needs from the different sexes in order to like them.

Anyway, in a male hero, my biggest must-have is confidence. Granted there is a fine line that cannot be crossed because arrogance is a big turn-off. But I like the hero who knows he can handle the situation, is confident in himself and his abilities. This is one reason I like Brockmann’s SEAL guys - they all are very confident in their abilities. Mr. Darcy is also confident in himself.

As for the female, I want a woman who has common sense. It’s more or different than being intelligent - I need a heroine who thinks things through and does things for logical reasons. Nothing turns me off more than a flaky or silly heroine. Elizabeth Bennett is so appealing because she has common sense and is also able to laugh at both herself and others.

In both, I want a sense of humor about both events around them and themselves and the willingness to admit when they are wrong and the willingness to change for the better. See: Darcy, Mr. and Bennett, Elizabeth.

I’ll add to say that Elizabeth Bennett also represents all that I want to see in a heroine.

Who doesn’t love Elizabeth Bennet?  Besides Mr. Bingley’s sisters, I mean.  Honestly, the only female character in P&P I wouldn’t want to read about is Charlotte Lucas. In the same way Darcy epitomizes my idea of a romantic male lead, she epitomizes a heroine who’s too stupid to live. She’s meek, bored, submissive, lazy, and worst of all, knows what she’s getting herself into with Mr. Collins, yet does it anyway.

I’ve read a lot of Charlotte Lucas-like heroines, and I always end up rolling my eyes, because a happy ending is so not believable there, because there’s no way someone with that kind of attitude would ever let herself be happy.

This kind of goes along with the common sense Lynn mentioned above, because for me, it’s just as absurd for a woman to be all “well, I’m already pregnant, might as well marry him, even if he is an ass”  or “he’s as good as I’m ever going to get, so I’d might as well bite the bullet and get it over with” as it is for one to think “I know there’s a crazed psycho in my house, but maybe I should take off my bra, wet my T-shirt, and go inside, just to be sure…”

Characters doing stupid things doesn’t make them stupid.  Characters doing things for stupid reasons makes them stupid.

To me, the one crucial trait for a true hero or heroine is honor. The juiciest conflicts are found in the tension between honor and expediency, and the hero’s or heroine’s character is revealed in how he or she approaches and resolves that tension.

when I was younger, the “a woman once did me wrong so no I distrust all women” wounded heroes made my little heart beat faster. Now I find myself impatient with that level of generalizing. A certain amount of alpha-ness is nice, in that I like a man with strength in his character. What I find I look for most in my heroes is a strong sense of Tribe (family, whether by blood or affection), honesty, integrity, and… well, a certain sense of endurance. As Miles says, you go on. You may put your foot in it up to your armpit (as Miles did in Memory), but you pick yourself up, and you just go on. Not martyrdom, though, definitely not.

I also like a sense of fun: like Scaramouche, being born with the gift of laughter and the sense that the world is mad. Going on, yes, but it’s most wonderful when it’s done with a sense of panache. Not just overcoming, but prevailing. 

1) Becca
2) yes, of course

Honor, brains, brawn, and just enough wryness to make him gut bustingly funny.  Really, I want that in both of them.  And I want there to be somewhere for the character to go, and for them to GO THERE. 

One of the things I find annoying about the truly Old School (1970s-1980s) books I’ve been reading is that there isn’t any definition to the “hero.”  He’s hot, and he can swing his dick pretty good, but he never does anything, says anything, IS anything of interest.  Granted, my sample size is very small, but I’ve mostly hated each one.

My favorite heroes are competent betas with a sense of humor. Anne Gracie’s Gideon, the Duke of Dinstable in The Perfect Rake is an example. He’s extremely funny and also treats people well. What starts out as an intriguing little adventure with Prudence Merridew turns into a deep commitment to the woman he loves and the sisters she protects. He finds an emotional home with the Merridews, and he remains laugh-out-loud funny while it happens.

As for heroines, my heart holds the injured, fragile ones dear, but the ones I most admire are the ones who aren’t waiting for a man to solve their problems. Many of Carla Kelly’s heroines fall into this category. They do what they can with what they have, not spending time feeling sorry for themselves. One thing I love about Kelly’s heroines is that they literally lean against the heroes (in Beau Crusoe, this causes the hero to freeze up at first), not in a needy way, but as a way to express camaraderie and affinity.

A recap, then I’ll stop: hero should be competent, funny and comfortable with himself; heroine should be a self-starter and also comfortable with herself (and if she’s funny, I’m in heaven).

Quotes are okay. Karenmc

A main component for me with any leading man or lady is constancy,something that Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park does not possess and therefore disqualifies him from hero status. I know many people think that he and Fanny would’ve made a great couple but in my opinion,Henry was more in love with the idea of being in love with Fanny than actually caring about her in the first place.

It is a trait that my favorite Austen couple,Anne Eliot and Captain Wentworth, have in abundance but I do not hold that women outdo men in this category-just check out that “Stay alive! No matter what it takes-I will FIND YOU!” scene in Last of the Mochians(Daniel Day-Lewis version) as a prime example of a man determined to not truly abandon his lady love for long.

To pull another Austen reference here,as Fanny says “It is a pity that you did not know yourself as well as you did in that moment”-self awareness is another key factor. While Jo March did break Laurie’s heart,she did it for the right reasons. The two of them were too evenly matched in personality to ever become a really happy couple.

The best romantic couples are a balancing act,challenging but not pointlessly contradictory,agreeable without being boring. And yes,you can quote me on that if you wish(Lady T is fine).

Angry Boner Man and his cousin Neanderthal Man both aggravate me to no end.  I want romance that’s about two people coming together, working together and figuring out how to stay together.  I want romance that’s about relationships, and almost always aggressive alpha-types overshadow their partner.

At this point I should probably include the disclaimer that I am a feminist, that I believe men and women can be and should be equal, and that domestic abuse just isn’t sexy or romantic.

There isn’t any hard and fast list of what must happen or what traits heroes and heroines must have.  A good author can make almost anything work.  I want characters who are believable, who have dimension, flaws and realistic growth.

Sexual experience, as stated above, is a big deal when it comes to the gender divide.  I tend to use it as a barometer of how well the author will handle gender issues.  Heavy focus on how her virginity makes her valuable and how his slutty experience makes him manly?  Probably not worth my time.  Subtle mentions of the above?  I’ll get through it but it better have something else to recommend it.  Their sexual experience being treated as a part of their character and not their gender?  I’m all over that.

My favorite romance author is, to the best of my knowledge, not shelved in the romance section.  Lois McMaster Bujold creates some of the best characters and the best matches.  Miles and Ekaterin: Miles is this “hyperactive little git” who has this burning drive to be the best, not because he’s perfect but because he’s broken and he needs to prove that he’s not.  Ekaterin has been through Hell and emerged with an iron core that does not bend.  Their pairing reminds me of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object, but where they meet they become stronger and more balanced.

I adore most of Linnea Sinclair’s pairings.  One thing that really strikes me is how she reverses the old stereotype about sexual experience.  Usually her heroes are virgins, but this does not make them less alpha.  And usually her heroines have had sexual experience, but this is presented as a positive thing.  And anyway, I never understood why a hero who’s emotionally isolated and can’t connect to other people would have sex with crowds of women.  Wouldn’t it make more sense for him to be a virgin?

And again, as mentioned above, Ilona Andrews is an author who writes couples who come together, both highly Alpha personalities, and yet neither of them is made submissive or less dominant by the pairing.  They make each other more, not less.

Sarah~

I think some of the stongest, more enduring qualities in (the well-done) romance h/hs are:

1) Intelligent
  I don’t mean super-smart, I mean the essential core of intelligence, in that they notice what’s going on and adapt in response, learning new things in the process.  They then factor that knowledge in as they move forward.

2) (or 1a?) Self-awareness
  They notice things are happening inside them, emotionally, and at some point—perhaps not until pg 399—they adapt in response.  (see above re: intelligence.)

3) The Capacity for Forgiveness
Often the awareness and change from #1 and #2 takes on some form of forgiveness, of him- or herself, of others, of each other, &/or of errors from the past.  It’s not essential quality, but I notice it’s often present in some manner.

4) Self-determination. 
At some point, the hero & heroine take matters into their own hands and effect change.

Oh, and it works. ;-)  They’re effective.  The world, however small or large it is in the story world, is different as a result of what they’ve done.

A character, male or female, is heroic to me if they’re resilient. No matter what life throws at them, emotionally, physically, socially, from within the family, or between the hero and heroine themselves, if a character can process it, think it through, choose a course of action, stay the course if he or she believes it’s the right approach, or re-evaluate and re-calibarate as needed, but at the end of all of this, the character has the motivation to achieve the goal he has set out for himself or herself, then that character is resilient and thereby heroic to me.

(How’s that for an over-long Rushdie-esque sentence?)

a) Yes
b) Keira Soleore

To add to my comment above about resilience, a good example is S.T. Maitland in Laura Kinsale’s PRINCE OF MIDNIGHT. Hero struggles with crippling vertigo, deafness in one ear, and the heroine’s strident thwarting of an emotionally closer relationship due to previous trauma. But he never loses a core well of confidence in himself and confidence that a solid, enduring relationship between the hero and heroine is possible. He weathers his fears and her trauma while staying true to himself and his values. He’s resilient and heroic.

Hi Sarah,

For me, heroes and heroines have some sense of morality, honor, sense of humor, and the ability to forgive and adapt. Of course, they aren’t perfect, but they adjust to become perfect for each other.

But I’ll be honest in saying that while the H/h may display some of these characteristics, if the story is poorly written, you really don’t give a flying fig if they have a happy ending…

a) yes       b)MarieC

Between this and the DA collective on authorial voice, it is a comment HEYDAY I say.

I will first second Darlene’s take on Atticus.  I did an entire essay on why To Kill a Mockingbird lives up to Lee’s ‘simple love story’ proclamation, and Atticus is the beta hero of beta heroes - even if he isn’t in a romance novel.  But unfortunately, that is indeed what we are talking about.

My first romance novel that I can recall was the lovely yet totally redunkulous Gentle Rogue by Johanna Lindsey.  Mantitty and Fabio cover aside, I enjoyed it.  I think what made me enjoy it was the SEXUAL TENSION.  It felt like watching two sex addicts try to live in captivity with each other.  Which probably wasn’t that far off.  The hero was a MAN.  He was strong and alpha, but he never compromised his heroine’s wishes.  And holy shit, the heroine was just as energetic.  She dressed up as a boy AND broke super expensive vases on telling her family that she was pregnant.  In the 80’s, that was a BIG DEAL. 

Recently, I read Butterfly Swords.  Same idea, although with more modern, balanced heroes.  Strong, able bodied, feeding off each other, and sexual tension.  What makes a romance readable to the mass romance reader, if not the analytical one, is the ability to watch the characters slowly build up that gigantic iron bridge of sexual tension, cross it, and make amazingly hot intercourse.  While being in love, naturally.  When said books came to the first sex scene, I can remember my mind exploding with the realization that this was that thing called LOVE, even if there was use of the Mighty Wang and the Magic Hoo-Hoo. 

Through some intellect, courage, ability to balance each other and reign in the stupid, and you have what could potentially be the perfect romance novel.  Unless you have a baby.

Then what you have is a soap opera.  <—-  Does not have an affinity for babies.

1.)  Sure, if you need it
2.)  John Jacobson/John from Dreaming in Books - whatever the bitchery decrees. 

(Because I had to)  evening69 - Do I REALLY have to explain this?  It’s pretty perfect as-is.

I’m not sure that I can add much anymore.  That won’t stop me though :) 

I think they both have to be intelligent.  After that I like honest.  I can’t stand the ‘I can’t tell him/her so I will lie’.  Those books drive me batty.  After intelligence and honesty I would go with regular old honor.  You know, stand up for those weaker, face up to your mistakes with an ‘I"m sorry’.  In short, the things I value in the people I have in my life.

Sam

I’ve got another favorite romantic hero, who again is not in a romance novel:  Captain Sam Vimes of Terry Pratchett’s Guards! Guards!.  Sam is a washed-up, alcoholic cop who has a core of integrity that goes to the bone. He especially dislikes it when people in power with lily-white hands get away with murder.  There is a love story for Sam in the book, an amazing love story about two middle-aged people who are not attractive by romance novel standards, but each sees in the other what no one else sees and that makes their love breathlessly romantic.

Oh, and there are dragons too, and trademark Pratchett humor. It’s a good introduction to his Diskworld novels for newbies.

Yes.  Darlene, again.[g]

She’s meek, bored, submissive, lazy, and worst of all, knows what she’s getting herself into with Mr. Collins, yet does it anyway.

Harsh! I’ve never seen these qualities in Charlotte Lucas.  I see her as a woman who has become resigned & therefore settles for someone who at least provides some of the things she’d hoped for in life: her own home & a child. I have friends who’ve done this. Certainly worth our pity, not our scorn. In her time period she would’ve been considered sensible & Lizzie selfish. Don’t start with me! I love Lizzie as much as the next person - hell I’ve been her at serveral points in time.
A heroine should never settle.

I’m going to answer this without reading the other comments. Because I grew up in a violent situation I really DID learn everything I needed to know about relationships from romance novels.

For me, the enduring traits are respect for themselves. If the hero/ine respects others needs above their own, it’s a fail for me. I love a book where one of them says “I don’t deserve this” and the other agrees. Books with adults in them, not old children. What I value are the books that showed me it’s ok to know what you need and ask for it, demand it, not apologize for it. When the hero/ine can express who they are and the hero/ine can not just accept them for that but value them for it - that’s the enduring message in romance for me.

You are enough. You are valuable. You are important. We will never forget that about each other. That’s romance, to me.

My favorite is Bet Me.  By far.  You know why?  Because the hero and heroine recognize how immature and selfish they are by the end of the book.  The ancillary characters spend most of the time yelling at Min and Cal for being so foolish as to fall for each other and once the falling is over, for being too stupid to see it.  The last bit where Min says “We’re going to evolve together,” is one of the best lines I have ever read, because it shows that the two of them know that they have faults and there are problems there and they’re going to work through them.  It doesn’t end with happiness and babies.  It ends with Min saying “I’m still going to get angry and slam doors.  But from now on, I’ll stay on this side when I slam them.”  (And I know that wasn’t dead on.  But it was pretty close for not having the book next to me.)

My favorite characteristic of a male hero is that he understands what the heroine (or hero in a m/m) needs.  I think we talked about this on one of our book chats - the “he’s on it” phenomenon.  It is not the same as a hero who takes care of the heroine.  That may not be what she needs in a partner.  It may be that he helps support her independence or education. Or helps her work out a problem.  Or, of course, knows what she needs in the bedroom.

To me this transcends the normal alpha male “take care of the woman” mentality.  It is more the knowing you have someone in your corner you can count on.  Who knows what you need even without having to expressly tell them. This is something that is almost impossible to have all the time in a real life relationship, it is more of the romance fantasy, which is why I think this is one of the ideal hero traits.

for me, the hero and heroine need to have a vulnerability i can relate to and the faith/trust to open that up to each other to foster true intimacy…the emotional kind.

i like complexity in characters, too.  don’t hate me for it, but GWTW does it for me; rhett is the problem-solving black sheep pragmatist with an immense sense of honor; scarlett is the fiery tempered, independent woman with a flamboyant personality and heart-breaking vulnerability.

a/ use it or lose it!
b/ they call me tater salad!

(Amelia Mercier)

I love heroes and heroines that are believable, smart, and able to hold an interesting and/or witty conversation.  The best examples I can give are in The Spymaster’s Lady, Guards! Guards!, To Love and to Cherish, Bet Me, No Rest for the Wicked, Revealed, The Summer of You, Last Night’s Scandal, and Pride and Prejudice. 

Also, I have a soft spot for heroes that go down ;)  And you can quote me on that.

First, I’m with Donna on Charlotte Lucas—she was a woman who knew what she wanted, namely a home and family of her own, and made her bargain based upon her prospects. Very pragmatic, perhaps “unromantic”, but realistic.

As for romance and the qualities I treasure in protagonists:

1.  Conviction:  See Amy in The Secret History of The Pink Carnation (or Henrietta in its sequel). She has a strong sense of self, a determination to do what she thinks is right, and is hell bent on fulfilling her purpose. This requires a certain confidence that shares a border with foolhardiness at times but is nonetheless relatable and conveys passion and spirit.

2.  Minutiae (lord how i hate that word):  In other words, God is in the details. In When Harry Met Sally, the guy melts my heart every stinking time when he refers to “that crinkle you get between your eyebrows when you’re looking at me like I’m crazy.” It’s the little things he sees about her that reveal a profound knowing. In Until the Real Thing Comes Along, Ethan (who isn’t even a possible love interest) wrecks his posh clothes dragging the mc’s rowboat to shore and says he’s taking them both out for new outfits. When she says “Why?” he says, “Because you can’t row a boat.” It’s so intimate.

3.  The Almighty Thud—(no nothing naughty here, sorry, move along)—the mc’s astounded realization that this Amazing Person who just practically seems to glow with lovability and radioactive hotness actually sees and values her for her true self. Conary Crocker in More Than You Know—now that guy could create a breathless thud in any woman—when he throws the blueberries at Hannah’s window. Pardon me while I swoon.

quote anything you like. the name’s lora.

Hm, who hasn’t been mentioned here?

Phin and Sophie from Welcome to Temptation: both snarky, both what the other has run into trouble with in the past who can’t stay away from each other, both a little jerky but solid at the core, plus well, conning. Lovely match and hot sex scenes.

Imriel and SIdonie from the Kushiel series. I adore them because not only does it start out as a bit of an odd couple, they try with all their hearts NOT to be together for the sake of their nation/Sidonie’s princesshood. And then it all goes terribly wrong and he has to move hell and back to get her and the country back. Plus, Sidonie’s love letter to Imriel when he’s in Alba (Justice) is the best one I’ve ever read in my life. Short, sweet, funny and heartbreaking at once.

@Darlene - and Lady Sybil is completely heroic as well. She’s beautifully written. (Though I’m not sure she’s my favourite Pratchett romance-heroine: I’ve a really soft spot for Adora Belle Dearheart.)

What do I like to see in my hero?
1.  Strength.  Not just strength physically, but in character.
2.  Respect.  Noticeably towards the heroine. I like a hero that has a healthy dose of respect for the heroine’s intelligence, decision-making skills, and strength (emotional and physical).
3.  Hotness. This isn’t just physical beauty; it’s that added little “oomph” that just says “I might not like you, but I’d do you, and do you very well” or “I might like you, but I’m not sure (yet) what to do with you.”
What do I like to see in my heroine?
1.  Again, strength. I like a woman (no matter the time period) that strives for something, be it money, family, the underprivileged. And I like a woman who challenges the status quo, particularly in historical romance. A woman unafraid to be unique.
2.  Confidence. And not just in their everyday interactions, but sexually as well. I like a heroine that “knows” what they want, what they deserve, and aren’t afraid to make it known and demand it.
3.  Savvy. I think along with strength and confidence, there comes a sense of when to submit. Knowing when it’s time to change gears, when to rely on someone else instead of having to go it alone, is also important. I’m thinking in both sexual and physical terms – be in the woman is in danger, and she just won’t listen to the man who (clearly) is an armed forces/military/etc. man who has much more experience in dealing with this issue, or it’s a woman who always has to have the upper hand and is unwilling or unsure of giving that last piece of herself.

Some of my favorite titles that come to mind :
Devil in Winter, by Lisa Kleypas.
Laid Bare, by Lauren Dane.
Something About You, by Julie James.
Flat Out Sexy, by Erin McCarthy.
Hot On Her Heels, by Susan Mallery.
Sweet Seduction, by Maya Banks. 
Lead Me On, by Victoria Dahl.

And yes, if you find something in here that you’d like to use in your book, feel free to do so.

Kindness is essential, both for heroes and heroines. I’ll forgive a lot of things in a protagonist, but not deliberate cruelty.

Responsibility is important, especially for heroes, who tend to have more people depending on them. (I mostly read historicals.) I don’t expect protagonists to display responsibility if they really have no one relying on them, of course, but if they have children, sick siblings, aging parents, servants in trouble, injured horses, etc., etc., they had better be taking care of them. Personal responsibility is also important; I can’t abide protagonists who blame their problems on other people when it’s their own damn fault.

I love it when the heroine is in a really difficult, upsetting situation and the hero sticks up for her, or vice verse. Or any situation in which the hero or heroine sticks up for somebody.

I hate it when protagonists assume the worst about people. “People say she’s a whore, so it must be true”, “She’s pretty and she’s refused multiple offers of marriage, so she must be a heartless tease”, “She was once a prostitute, so she must be a terrible person”, “She (or he) can’t possibly have a good reason for not forgiving/apologizing to that person”, “She’s a woman, so she must be a liar”, “He’s a man, so he must be a villain”, “He (or she) isn’t dealing with a problem in the way that I would, so he (or she) is weak and lazy”...I hate all of those. I’m also not fond of protagonists making less insulting assumptions based on rather flimsy evidence (ie, “She’s a prostitute, so she must some lower-class farmer’s daughter, despite the fact that she’s extremely well-read and accomplished and genteel” from more than one Mary Balogh story), but I don’t consider this grounds for disliking them.

I don’t need heroes or heroines to be particularly clever, unless they’re supposed to be smart but come off as stupid. I do love math/science genius heroes and heroines, perhaps because I’m hopeless at that sort of thing. Oh, and I hate it when the hero’s so intelligent and discerning, but the heroine’s an idiot and the hero’s like, “Oh, you’re so cute when you try to think.” Yuck.

That brings me to my next point: I don’t like it when the hero is condescending to the heroine and tries to take over her life when she clearly doesn’t need or want it. One’s lover should not be that much like one’s dad, no matter what Freud has to say about it.

I admire protagonists who have had bad things happen to them but manage to get on with their lives regardless. They don’t need to get over it completely; in many cases, that would be unrealistic. Also, I love my angst.

I like for heroines to be their own people. I don’t like it when the heroine is willing to throw away everything about herself for some man, no matter how great he is. It’s nice when both the heroine and the hero have interests outside of each other; otherwise, you get a Twilight situation.

Oh, and I dislike heroines who are hostile to all other women. Well, usually. If she’s awesome in other ways, I can stand it well enough.

Is he willing to die for her?

My favorite heroes can answer that question with a resounding YES! Do I expect him to die? No. It’s his willingness that makes a hero work for me. I like warriors. Protectors. Alpha males in the best sense of that phrase. Does a hero’s very nature create conflict between him and the heroine? You betcha. And I like it!

Is she willing to die for him?

The answer better be yes for her too. She’ll step in front of a bullet (or an arrow) and take it for him because she wants to protect him and loves him that damn much, and he’ll be pissed as hell about it. Ah romantic conflict…gotta love it.

However, my favorite heroines aren’t really the kick ass types. I like heroines who act as healers (not in the literal sense, but in the spiritual sense).  Nurturing women who balance HIS kick ass nature. This appeals to me the most because some of the kindest, gentlest women I’ve ever known have also been the strongest. Weathering adversity with grace. It’s that inner strength I want to see in the heroine.

Yes, you may quote me.
Holly Youngquist

In an earlier comment, I named the traits I thought were essential to all romance heroes (confidence, protectiveness, strong desire for heroine balanced by respect for boundaries). But I want to add that I think the most important thing is that the hero is the right person for the heroine. He might not be the perfect man for me, but if the author convinces me he’s perfect for her, the story will work.

An example, right now I’m reading

Mr. Impossible

. I’m not finished with it yet, but it’s already clear that while Daphne’s former husband was critical and judgmental of her passionate interest in Egypt, Rupert seems to find her all the more attractive for it. The more he finds out about her, the more he falls in love with her. He’s the right man for her because he loves her the way she is. He’s not looking at her and thinking, “Well, she’s pretty enough. Now if I can just change this and that about her…”

Same goes for the heroine and her feelings towards the hero. There should be a sense that as she gets to know him better, she loves him more. She should love him the way he is and not have a desire to change him.

One exception to this that can work is if the hero or heroine has a flaw that gets in the way of the romance, and he or she overcomes it by the end of the book. I think this is tough to pull off convincingly, especially if the flaw is very serious, but it worked in “Pride & Prejudice.” Also, Suzanne Brockmann’s Sam & Alyssa are a couple who had to work through some issues before they were ready for their HEA. I think it worked particularly well that Sam & Alyssa’s story took place over several books, so we had a sense of time passing and the characters learning from mistakes and growing in maturity. In a single novel, there often isn’t enough time for this to happen convincingly.

(a) yes (b) Alpha Lyra

This is a hard question, because when you get down to it, I think that it’s not REALLY about traits. It is a little about traits, don’t get me wrong. But we’re always looking to who our heroes and heroines become, not necessarily who they are at the outset. A disreputable rake has to learn to love. An uptight governess has to learn to let go. A Greek billionaire has to learn to put his secret babies first. I mean, the (very general) point is that love changes us all for the better and we very often see that heroes and heroines have some rather unlikeable traits when they first start out. Condescending prick? Cold-hearted? Vain? Selfish? I mean, I think we all have preferences for what we want to see in characters. I love to see shy heroes and heroines, for instance, yet what makes them great is ultimately not that they’re shy, but that they love someone enough to get over it. I guess that’s something that makes the romance genre in general a beautiful thing: perseverance. Heroes and heroines get over it. They OVERCOME it. And perhaps that’s my favorite trait. Maybe it is too simplistic, but I honestly love a book that’s all about perseverance.

Going off of that, I’m a big fan of Meredith Duran, Sherry Thomas, and Carrie Lofty (among others), which suddenly makes a bit more sense to me…

I thought of a couple more outside of my weird fondness for wounded souls: Intelligence and competence. I’m thinking of the heroes and heroines of Joanna Bourne’s incredibly awesome Spymaster series. Though the protagonists are antagonists, the heroes generally fall for the heroines right from the first and don’t lie to themselves about it. And they are also super smart and capable dudes. The women, too. LOVE! Another take on the smart, competent guy with a sense of humor from outside the romance genre is Sir Robert Carey from P.F. Chisholm’s mystery series (first: A Famine of Horses). He’s a youngest son who’s a cousin of the queen (his grandmother is Mary Boleyn, ie. the Other Boleyn Girl, his grandfather might be Henry VIII). If you’re sick of all Philippa Gregory all the time but you like the Tudor era, these are worth checking out.
a) yep you can still use it
b) I’m still Nancy Klingener (but this time I linked to the right URL).

I like quirky, funny heroines, not to be confused with ditzy, stupid heroines. I like heroines who are strong and intelligent and don’t sleep with a guy because he’s holding the mortgage to her home and threatening to foreclose. I’d like to think they’re smart enough to figure out a different way of handling that situation.

I like guys who are confident, NOT cocky.  I dislike INTENSELY (I’m Catholic, can’t use the word “hate”;) the “heroes” who are rude and ignorant to the heroine,  office staff or other employees. Name calling is a deal breaker.  I think the heroes that I like the most are the ones who are more than a tad enamored with the heroine and are not about the sex first and foremost, and they put more thought into wooing her, than humping her:).

I love a combination of alpha and beta in a hero. He can lean more towards one side or the other, but he should have aspects of both. He has faith in her and can bow to her expertise, but still go all Male In Charge at times. He trusts that she can take care of herself but will still go all protective when she gets put in danger. It’s a fine line, but it’s awesome when an author gets that balance.

Booth from Bones is a great example of this. Despite being all alpha male, he likes strong women and yields to Brennan’s intelligence and, in some episodes, her own ability to defend herself, but he still goes all Man Of Action when she gets threatened. The Doctor is another great example, leaning more towards the beta side. He’s all sweet and beta, but when pushed far enough, goes all Oncoming Storm on you.

I also love it when heroes have an awesome sense of humor. Or, possibly, if a hero’s broody, the heroine can make him laugh, or vice versa, where the hero can make the heroine laugh when she’s going through a rough time. Either way, humor is a nice thing to share.

As far as heroines go, I’m a bit more vague on that. I really just need her to have a personality. If she’s quiet and understated, like Sophie from the Bridgerton series or Eve from the Wallflower books, that’s fine, as long as there’s still a personality there apart from “shy girl.” But that’s why Agnes from Agnes and the Hitman and Willa from To Wed a Scandalous Spy are some of my favorite heroines.

And I get what you’re going for in trying to use “hero” for both genders, but when you’re talking about a genre that has two main protagonists, one male, one female, it’s much easier to have a pronoun that denotes gender.

Also - if you find me quotable, feel free! (though it would probably make more sense to call me Stephanie if you did than sugarless :-p)

I suppose it should be noted I prefer regency romances.

General qualities I often find in romance males are strength, loyalty, devotion, and a fair amount of intelligence. The man will often be protective of those around him, sometimes to the point of being overprotective. If he was a rogue, he’ll probably be growing tired of his exciting but shallow lifestyle. If he was an uptight and down to earth type of guy, he’ll usually be put into a whirlwind situation where he’ll begin to appreciate spontaneity. He’ll be attractive, though not necessarily handsome (he’ll have that “quality” about him which makes him so appealing).

The heroines will almost always be beautiful. Sometimes she’ll be a hidden beauty but during the course of the novel her true loveliness will become apparent. The only heroine I can think of off hand who is described as ugly or nearly ugly, is Mary Balogh’s Freyja Bedwyn. The romance heroine is loyal and gracious (when necessary). She might be drawn to money, but she is rarely selfish. More often than not she needs money to help someone else. The heroine is usually intelligent, but her level of flightiness varies from whimsically silly to non-existent. If she is flighty, it’s endearing rather than annoying.

The heroines I like most are the ones who demonstrate a strong personality that can give when needed but won’t let the male lead run roughshod over it. She should be kind and intelligent, but mostly, if she gets out of the carriage or sneaks out of the house, she should accomplish something more than being caught by the villain (or hero) and treated like just another mindless female. One a similar note, the male protagonists should appreciate the strength of the female and not try to lock her up in the house. This is especially true of any novel in which the female is supposed to be a spy, pirate, or some other dangerous job. If fact there are few things quite as annoying as seeing a female spy become completely useless at what she was once best for just because the male lead smiled that brilliant smile of his.

Amanda Quick’s recent novels have been fulfilling as far as the females go, usually allowing the female to dispatch the ultimate villain. Her males are still a bit domineering, but not as bad as some I’ve read. Mary Balogh’s females also tend to be strong personalities, with nice development that makes them realistic and entertaining.

Persistence!!

Also, go see the movie “Red”. It’s a keeper!

Hah! wall62….don’t hit the wall 62 times, climb over it!

I like my heroes and heroines intelligent. Witty banter is probably my favorite part of any romance—it’s the push-pull in words that does it for me. Cleverness in plotting and in characterization earn major, major points.

a) No thank you.

My favorite hero and heroine are Simon and Lucy from Elizabeth Hoyt’s “The Serpent Prince”.

I love this topic, as well as the title of the book.  Over the 30 plus years that I’ve read romances, I’ve learned so many historical facts that I didn’t know before. 

There are numerous heroic traits, but I’ll narrow it down to one.  No matter what the hero’s goal or how badly he needs/wants it, at some point, he puts the heroine above that goal.

I like heros and heroines whose strong personalities bounce off each other in the story. I love seeing strong female characters (who are accustomed to running their own lives the way they see fit, often without help from anyone else) who have the tendency to run men over, and then meet men who don’t let them get away with it. Heros who are strong in their own right and don’t turn the heroine into a man-dependent piece of milquetoast, but also don’t let the heroines walk all over them as they may be accustomed to. Best example I can think of is Jill Shalvis’s Pacific Heat series - I love both Pace and Wade and how they have this whole alpha-male, macho baseball thing!

feel free to quote me, but I’m not sure what I said makes sense to anyone but me!

Heroes with “eyes wide open” loyalty give me weak joints and melty organs. Loyalty to family, friends, lovers…to himself. When a man is willing to give of himself, over and over, knowing the risks inherent to such steadfast love, that’s irresistible. Both on a page and in person.

Ned, from Courtney Milan’s Trial by Desire, works hard for the family responsible for saving his life, remains true to the wife he hasn’t seen in years, and struggles every day to be the best version of himself he can possibly be. There’s respect, honesty, singular (but not blind) devotion—all living under the guise of loyalty within him. It makes him strong, and a strong man wins the day in the world of Romance.

Complex by nature, woman can rationalize, argue, or deny herself into and out of love with a finger-snap. A female hero who can look at her potential partner and know what she wants from him—without trying to rationalize/argue/deny for him, too—is rare. That said, she can—and should—question and doubt and worry (it’s what makes her her, after all). I guess I appreciate a heroine who’s honest with herself, first and foremost.

Laurel, from Nora Roberts’ Savor the Moment, recognizes her insecurities as she’s falling in love. Her story is especially poignant, one of friends-to-lovers where she worries (non unnecessarily) her feelings aren’t as deeply reciprocated. That this doesn’t stop her from taking risks, that the affair doesn’t derail her life, that her introspection provides her with the strength to try for a happy ending makes her an honest and admirable example of a well-crafted heroine.

Maybe this is obvious and goes without saying, but the key to romance novels for me is that one or both of the characters is changed by love.  My favorite hero is a bit tortured; maybe by something in his past or an inadequacy he is trying to hide from the world.  He thinks he is not good enough for the amazing woman he has fallen for.  But he absolutely cannot be whiny about this; he has to struggle internally and secretly, otherwise he appears weak and annoying.  He is eventually changed by the realization that the heroine loves him exactly the way he is, faults and all. 
Speaking of weak and annoying, nothing will stop me in my reading tracks faster than a shrinking violet heroine.  She has to be someone I can see myself being.  I have to be able to somehow imagine myself in her place, making all the same decisions.  It breaks the magic if she does something incredibly stupid.  As someone said above, Joanna Bourne’s heroines are absolutely perfect.  They are flawed, intelligent, brave, and vulnerable all at the same time.  Anything else and I start thinking the heroine doesn’t deserve that hottie with the face of a fallen angel and the body of a roman god!
yes you can use any of this if you can get past the blah writing and my name is Courtney.

Ah, the ideal man!  My favorite hero isn’t perfect, but he’s never mediocre at his profession.  And he’s compassionate, whether he knows it or not - he might be uncomfortable with children, but he’ll soothe a crying toddler…or try to, awkwardly and endearingly.  As capable as he is, he doesn’t entirely understand women - but he tries to do that, too.  He respects women in general, but the one he really falls for will be the one who surprises him, and impresses him with her guts and intelligence.  All that, and a sense of humor, too!

Yes, you can quote me.
Starr Ambrose

In a romance or romantic suspense, I DO NOT like H/Hs misunderstanding each other (when 5 minutes would solve it all)and then the author spends 100 pages of the book with everyone torturing themselves and every one else   ANGST! Arrugh.  Usually this book becomes a wallbanger.  (Forget Cathy and Heathcliffe, and Ashley, and Scarlett.  Keep Melanie and Rhett)
  I want my heroines to be strong enough to be weak…“Let me go down stairs, I have the gun, am bigger, stay behind even for a bit!”  Then He has to rescue her AND save the day, when it might have been a bit easier (for him) if the heroine had deferred - just this once.  Just kill her if she’s TOO DUMB TO LIVE. Don’t waste my time.
      However, I do not mean that she can Never save him, just use COMMON SENSE.  (SWEPT ASIDE by Sharon Sala)
  I love Booth in BONES, I don’t like Tempe.  In all the years the show has been on everyone else has grown, matured for the better.  If anything, the she’s become meaner, more judgemental, less empathetic.  One would suppose that being in contact with all her kind, funny co-workers SHE might have learned something.  - not So.
So as an Heroine, forget her, keep him! ( As Angela said not very many people would put up with her.)
      I thought Ethan and Grace are great, Gabe and Rachel, Eve and Roarke, but add to the list Claire and Jaime, and James and Coco (Anybody know SLEEPING BEAUTY bu Judith Ivory?) .  He saves her from herself and she saves him from his enemies.  I love that book.  I want to ask Jennifer Crusie or Somebody why Judy Cuervas isn’t writing anymore.  She has wonderful H/Hs.  James has baggage, but is not overwhelmed by it, and when Coco saves him from disgrace, he says Thank you.  He knows she was a courtesan, but he loves her: not despite, not because, he just does.  He’s true, he know what he wants and he stays the course until he gets her.
        I don’t like get the girl, lose the girl, get the girl romances ( see Para 1).     
  Cait
  ps. This discussion has mentioned a lot of books for me to look up.

I want witty banter.  Both of them should be strong, intelligent, and with a deeply rooted sense of integrity, but if they don’t have (or find) a sense of humor about themselves and each other, I will skim.  This is my escape: I’m going to invest several hours of my life in these characters, I want to have fun.

Aside from that, I don’t care about traits: alpha/beta, objectively gorgeous/the “plain” person who glows only for the other, well-educated/not, handicapped by insecurities/confident, etc.; these provide the relationship development points and color as we watch these two figure out how to be together and I’m up for any well-written combination thereof.

And sexual tension.  Something needs to draw me through the book, and when the nominal plot (suspense/mystery/problem) becomes more interesting than the romance, something is wrong.  But I don’t require universe-distorting orgasms, and generally let my eyes slide over the over-ripe sex scenes.  Even Kresley Cole’s, which are better than most and have steamed my glasses more than once.  I love Heyer and will sigh happily with a payoff of an emotional declaration and a passionate kiss.

Having said that, I like learning something as I go (e.g. Roman aqueducts, Regency fashions, Navy SEAL cultural norms, new religions in Discworld, whatever). It should be woven seamlessly in, and be reflected in the nature of the characters, but it’s not strictly necessary.  Though I will throw a book against a wall when it’s clear the author didn’t do the research and it will cause me to lose all faith in the characters (yes, I’m a Potato Rager, and proud).

I’m intrigued by all kinds of situations (everything from totally implausible urban fantasy to hyper-constrained Regency) and all kinds of characters.  It’s nice when I like them, or can identify with them, but often even more interesting when I don’t.  I just want them to be well-rounded characters who are worth my time. 

The book that can steam my glasses, sigh wistfully and make me laugh out loud is the Holy Grail.  Chase, Crusie, Quinn, Pratchett (the Sam Vimes books) are all close, but even adding the half dozen other writers who can be depended upon to draw at least a smile from me, that’s not enough to feed my reading habit.  Need more books!  Thinking about trying fiction next, Sarah?

I think we have to look at why we describe the couple as heroes and heroines first; why do we have these two shorthand labels for the people whose story we are reading?  I think ‘hero’ and ‘heroine’ are concepts. They are words that imply things to us and for us, things like (this isn’t an inclusive list just some thoughts):
•  The characters with these labels are on a journey and they don’t know the destination
•  They have obstacles to overcome and these are both internal and external, just as the journey can be either internal, external or both
•  They don’t know that they are heroes and heroines because to them they are just on a journey
•  This journey is to find something, such as redemption, their authentic self, and so on.  It is a purposeful journey filled with intention not a blithe wandering (eg. they haven’t fallen into this relationship just because their biological clock is ticking or all their friends are getting married).
•  They have travelled from not-knowing to knowing and from isolation to connection
•  They are changed by their journey experience
When I began to read romances again (having given them away in the old skool days of the ‘80’s) I felt that I was often reading a really strong focus on the role of redemption and I don’t mean the good girl saving the bad guy but that sense of love and connection giving the h/h what they needed in order to develop into who they needed to become so they could form a couple and live their HEA.  For me the couple’s story works if I can clearly see that they are better for being together so the question of the traits that each brings to that relationship becomes one about what enables this relationship to succeed or have the potential for a HEA.
My ultimate romantic example is from the movie ‘The Last of the Mohican’s’ when under the waterfall Hawkeye tells his love Cora to survive whatever happens and he will come for her.  Then he jumps, leaving her to fall into enemy hands as he escapes to fight another day.  The trust between them in that moment, when he is leaving her to violence and probably rape is powerful and mutual. He trusts her good sense and courage as well as her belief in him and she trusts his honour and his courage and his competency.  Whatever may happen doesn’t matter because she is who she is, the woman he loves. Sometimes we can’t be the ones to take action and enduring takes courage and strength. Also they are both in this together, each doing what they can to solve the situation; there is a sense of joint enterprise and that they are working together even though they are apart.
So for me, the traits for a successful romance hero and heroine are:
•  Honour (which tells if you can be trusted)
•  Redemption (able to admit that something is wrong and able to do what it takes to fix it)
•  Respect for the other ( could also be called trusting the other)
•  Acceptance of the other (any change isn’t mandated by one person for the other, the change has to come from within)
•  Openness to change (even if this is just seeing oneself differently, eg. as worthy of love)
•  Competency and good sense
•  Thinking and judgement
This is a quick response to the question.  Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I am happy to be quoted if you wish.
Merrian

Cait - I love Bones, and most definitely the cast of characters and Booth is pure deliciousness, but the writers are really pissing me off in so many ways, and what you just pointed out is one of those ways.

Essentially, it’s like they’re scared to make Tempe grow, just like they’re scared to resolve the sexual tension between her and Booth (but yet they keep rubbing our noses in it. If you’re going to acknowledge that it exists, you have to move forward with it at some point, or it just becomes ridiculous)

I get that the show is somewhat based on the interactions between her hyper-rational self and Booth’s… Bothiness, but if they were really good writers, they would be able to make her grow as a person while still keeping the interactions interesting. But you’re absolutely right - if anything, she’s gotten worse. Also - you’d think that, as an anthropologist, she would be able to respect other people’s belief systems. It makes no sense that she’s so judgmental.

I still love the show, but if the writers keep being too scared to do anything interesting with her character, I don’t know how long I’ll be able to say that.

Sorry, I know that was wildly off topic, but it’s a rant that’s been building for a while.

Also, to be somewhat more on topic - I hate huge misunderstandings that could be solved in a 5 minute conversation, but drags on for a hundred pages instead. That being said, I am a sucker for a well written “God I’m such an idiot” moment from a hero. Few books can give me that moment without having me throw the book against a wall for the hundred pages of conflict before it, but when it works, I totally gets to me, and I don’t know why.

And, since I love heroines with big personalities, I also love a hero who knows how to deal with her when she’s being a little neurotic.

I know I’m echoing a lot of sentiments here, but what I really want in my hero/heroine is REALISM.  I know we’re reading for escape and that the real world can be a dull and boring place, but I want to read about heroes I can imagine wanting to be with the me that I am, not the me that I wish I were.  A hero I can imagine walking into my life, not one who would walk straight past me for the more attractive, dynamic and gorgeous woman right behind me.  A heroine who makes tea, gets desperate for the loo at embarassing times, misses her bus.  But a hero and heroine who can give me the hope that I too can change, become strong in adversity, can overcome grief and loss and trauma, because they have.  A hero and heroine I can identify with. People I could meet and get on with, not people who would pass me over as not being wonderful/special enough.

We are all heroes and heroines to the people that love us.  I’d like to see a bit more of that ‘real world’ romance reflected in novels, rather than the ‘super Alpha’ male who would come across as ridiculously controlling in real life, and the ‘I’m so strong..oops, save me!’ heroine who would make most men shout ‘Grow up and sort your own life out!’ if they actually met her.

I don’t want or need to be saved, I can save myself.  I want heroines like me and heroes who can be there without having to Be There.

This has all been said before, I think, but if any of it is any use, it’s yours.

Sense of humor! If he can make me laugh, and—just as important if not more—laugh at himself—I know he will be there for life’s ups and downs, be a good daddy, and be in it for the long haul.

Regarding hero/heroine:  you could always use the word protagonist.

For me intelligence has to come first.  It doesn’t have to be genius level or even high IQ if the h/h have street smarts, shrewdness or ability to start a fire in the rain, but they must have some form of intelligent behavior. Sookie Stackhouse might not rock an IQ test, but she is one smart cookie.

Self-awareness coupled with ability and willingness to change behaviors that are counterproductive.

Sense of humor.

Passionate, both in the sexual sense and emotional sense.  Passionate commitment to something and to each other. Real affection for each other, not just lovely love, but the friendly little day-to-day things. He’ll rub her feet and leave love notes in the sugar bowel. She will make him comfortable and his life as easy as possible by taking care of little needs he didn’t know he had.  Thnk A Civil Contract by Heyer.  They are best friends.

Stubbornness - they don’t give up trying no matter what.  No quitters on my list of favorites.

Strength and integrity coupled with humility. When the proud Duke of Avon kneels at Leonie’s feet in These Old Shades by Heyer, my heart melts.

My idea h/h?  Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester, and why didn’t he get an annulment years ago? I like Cal and Min from Bet Me, too. 

I just noticed that very few of us talk about physical appearance.  Apparently washboard abs and flaming red hair aren’t that important in our h/h characters.

a) yes, of course
b) Kilian Metcalf

As a romance reader in the process of writing a romance novel, the most important traits in both a hero and heroine are the abilities to admit that they need help and to be honest with themselves and each other. Maybe because they were my first serious foray into the world of romance, but I’ve always loved the Cynster men and women. By the end of the book, they work as a team and as a family to solve the problems that they face (despite the best efforts of the men to be wonderfully overprotective). Their relationships aren’t just based on all consuming lust, they grow to be partnerships in both the domestic and social spheres, which I find especially important as a younger reader.
A) yes, you can quote me
B) Taylor L.

As I was reading Instant Attraction by Jill Shalvis, I realized that the really appealing aspect of a hero or heroine is the unconditional admiration they have for their romantic interest.  When the narrator describes how the rugged hero loves her dimples or her feisty attitude it appeals to the reader because we can insert ourselves into his admiration.  It’s basically like reading a horoscope: not every description is going to match our personalities but even if just a few do then we can be excited to know that like this fictional woman, we too can be loved and appreciated by a dashing man.  The appeal of these stories is being able to project ourselves into their narrative, and so we seek to identify with the heroine if only to know that our idiosyncrasies are attractive as well.

Hi Sarah,

Your question inspired me, and I now humbly offer you my lengthy perspective…

Romance heros and heroine traits, while typically complementary and often shared, each have a unique tenderness and particular delivery that can only be tasted by the flavor of each of their gender, like a perfectly chosen spice.  For example: Masculine devotion tends to promise in a commanding, determined way (think Romeo), whereas feminine devotion tends to comfort in a more subtle, yet equally determined way (think Jane Eyre).  Words are so important when used to illustrate pictures, as you well know, and because of this I feel it is important to consider the main objective to this writing endeavor to assist in deciding whether or not to combine male and female character references using one word (hero).  Is the objective of the book to redefine the readers’ instinctual response to the word “hero” and “heroine”, or is the objective to emphasize the heroic traits of two different genders?

It seems that the reasons most characters are crowned a “hero” or “heroine” are greatly influenced by how each trait is actually exploited within the context of the story, not merely by the trait(s) themselves.  A lot of basic heroic traits can be present in a character like: love, strength, passion, integrity, loyalty, courage, commitment, devotion, cleverness, compassion, etc., but the heroic crowning of a character tends to be determined by the actions that the hero and heroine have taken to unlock their otherwise unfortunate circumstance(s) using their key trait(s), and for me, this is what makes the difference between a seemingly heroic character versus a true hero and heroine.

My fave characters change all the time, but for now my favorite romantic hero is Mr. Darcy (Pride and Prejudice).  I am absolutely in LOVE with Mr. Darcy!  This character blows me away… Why?!  Charm, intelligence, power, discernment, mystery, vulnerability… of course, but above all the obvious adjectives it was his love for Elizabeth.  Mr. Darcy selflessly made sure (even if he couldn’t have Elizabeth) that all of the people she loved and cared for were looked after (and he does this in secret no less) because he knew how important their happiness was to her… I melt just thinking about him.  Mr. Darcy was a romantic hero ultimately crowned not only by the glory of his own conquest, but because he put his own agenda aside and compassionately brought resolution to the broader concerns of the only woman he would ever love…  How romantic!! Who does that?! Heros.

Like heros, there are so many fabulous heroines in literature, but I don’t have a favorite heroine at this time (My own fab adventure somewhere between a bottle of Veuve Clicquot, two different airlines, butterflies, and a salty tequila shot… don’t count I’m sure!) God-speed with your writing project!

a)Yes, let me know if you do! ;) Thank you.
b)Amber Guidara

When I reflected on the romance novels that I read, & the ones that I reread. I’ve realised that the ones that really resonate for me are the ones that not only mirror the
“real” world ,whilst giving me heroes & heroines with enough humour, wit & intelligence to engage & delight me.
  Others have already mentioned Suzanne Brockmann’s “Jules”.  To me, he is the romance world’s Everyman. It is irrelevant to me, that the character is gay. What matters is that that over the course of 14 books we see him grow, go through joys & heartaches &  THEN finally cheer like mad,when he gets his HEA.
  That is what I want from a novel or series . A truly satisfactory resolution, for a character that we know & love.
  Loretta Chase is another author who also (for me) achieves this growth & development with her chracters.
  Rupert Carsington remains a huge favourite of mine. A solidly beta hero - Not a good term, I prefer ” a Chap”. Who utterly adores   his significantly more brilliant other half, with absolutely no ego affecting his delight in her genius.
My ultimate romantic lead, is however, Max de Rohan, from Liz Carlyle’s No True Gentleman.
  Having knocked off Catherine Woodeway’s first( &  somewhat Wooster-ish )  husband.  LC gives us Max. Tall.Dark &  Handsome-ish. Intelligent &  humourous, protective & supportive.  AND he has a “secret ” title to boot !  He makes my cynical heart flutter every time I read that book !
  Give me a hero & heroine who have wit & humour &  I’ll show you a reader who won’t be aiming her books against the wall in utter frustration.
a. If it’s of any use
b.Cate Nugent

Heroines that have backbone, try to be independent and use the brains given them. It’s okay if a gal can’t physically change her own flat, but she should at least have the sense to know this about herself and contract with an auto club.  Even if her phone inconveniently has no service when she needs to call them.

I love the heroes who bother to try to figure out the heroine. Especially the ones who listen for subtext. Really pays attention. Though I think in real life that would have me running for the hills.

I also like the heroes who allow the heroines make mistakes, then support the heroines through the consequences. Not rescue so much as make the resulting consequences more bearable, share the pain so to speak.

For both: humor and smarts…witty banter is one of the sexiest things in the world to me.  Also, I love people who can talk their way out of anything, who can skewer opponents verbally, and preferably make others laugh while doing it.  When hero and heroine are a good match verbally, yum. (Lizzie and Darcy, sigh!!) If either hero or heroine is TSTL….yuck!!

Both should be intensely loyal to those they love, and also moral at the core (not in the Fundamentalist Christian sense—‘cause I don’t care if they drink, swear, and fall into bed on a whim—but in the deeper sense of caring about the needs and welfare of others…i.e., not being selfish bastards, at least not when it REALLY matters…though a little selfish bastardliness in minor points is a piquant sauce to a hero now and again, especially when the heroine is somehow threatening his equilibrium or usual confident sense of self).

Both should be brave, physically and emotionally (though not necessarily both at once…they need to have issues to overcome).

Both must have a deep capacity to FEEL. Otherwise, why bother?

And while I want heroines who are strong and clever and can take care of themselves, I LOVE moments when heroes are protective—especially when it comes out of the blue while the hero is still utterly denying he cares about the heroine.  Like suddenly punching out another guy who insults the heroine. Or swooping in out of nowhere to the rescue.  (I can’t help loving those old skool books where the hero makes a logically-impossible appearance to save the heroine—like, last we saw him he was clapped in chains in an inescapable dungeon and the heroine went off after the villain to an obscure forest without leaving word for anyone where she was going, and yet, somehow, just as the villain is about to slaughter/ravish/get-the-MacGuffin-from her, the hero emerges out of the night, pistol in hand, to bring the villain down.  Stupid, I know, but it gets me on some primitive, swoony level. )

Despite my fondness for that alpha-stuff…my favorite, favorite hero of all is the minister Christy Morrell from Patricia Gaffney’s To Love and to Cherish.  Moral strength, inherent goodness, smarts, humor, humility, loyalty, an incredibly deep capacity to love, a very human sense that he doesn’t always know what he’s supposed to do in complicated situations…plus tawny hair, and a very hot, horse-riding bod.  BEST GUY EVER!!

Please switch to heroine (and keep waitress, actress and all the other fem suffixes, while we’re at it).
There’s nothing wrong with a suffix that denotes femininity. I’m proud to be a woman, and not at all put off by being denoted as one. Why would one automatically think a heroine is something less than a hero?

There’s one trait that hasn’t been mentioned, and may not be a strict requirement, but is nevertheless fun: kinkiness.  This lack may be to so many heroines being naive innocents (while the men are sexually experiences—a literary standard going back to Tom Jones), but it’s fun when the characters realize that there’s more to sex than a bed with him on top.  Great examples include White Rose Ensnared by Juliet Hastings (she’s a submissive, and by the end her lover/husband indulges her in that) and Tempted All Night (where the heroine goes from submissive through the book to the one in charge by the end).

It’s also fun when the heroine realizes that she’s sexy.  So many male characters ooze confidence and certainty while the female characters have no idea how beautiful/sexy they are but rather shy and modest.  There’s a nice scene in Love in the Afternoon by Lisa Kleypas where the normally modest-dressing heroine gets a sexy bit of lingerie for her wedding night and shows herself off to her husband on their wedding night—leaving him stunned.

(and feel free to quote me)

I want to be convinced that the hero is a good match for the heroine and that the heroine is a good match for the hero.  And I want to like them both enough that I’m not thinking “good, those two scumbags deserve each other”.

The specific traits may vary, but the most important trait that both need to have is respect for the other.  If the two don’t respect each other by the middle of the story (or by a reasonable point in the story arc before they fall in love if it’s a series), I’m not going to believe that they can truly love each other, and I’m not going to root for them to get together by the end.

Yes, you can quote me, either as Castiron or as my real name (which may be buried in your Gmail box somewhere).

You are enough. You are valuable. You are important. We will never forget that about each other. That’s romance, to me.

meoskop, THIS. I read a lot (romance and non-romance) and there’s a lot of disparity (alphas, betas, the wounded - literally and figuratively, the over-confident) amongst the heroes and heroines alike, but in the end both characters come to that realization: the other person is an important part of their life that they cherish (sexytimes and otherwise) and that they are better together than apart.

Looking at my own bookshelves, I’m sorry to say that all my favorite re-reads have hero/heroine pairs that fit a very specific mold. Specifically, a hero that has non-standard/effeminate looks, a way overactive intellect and the ability to use it to create verbal smack downs and witty banter with equal ease, a desire for the heroine that manifests itself as concern and helpfulness but not stalker-y smothering. Because the heroine has similarly non-standard beauty, has a brain that matches his beat for beat, is slightly mistrustful, and willfully independent. (See: The Lymond Chronicles’ Lymond and Phillippa, Sayers’ Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane, Bujold’s Miles and Ekaterin, and even to a lesser extent Elizabeth Peters’ John and Vicky (though they are both too pretty for their own good) and Emerson and Amelia.)

Apparently, silver-tongued devils do it for me. :) I’ll put up with a lot of crap for some witty dialogue. Possibly because it’s indicative of intelligence? A sexy mind trumps perfect abs IMHO.

Yes, you can quote me.

Decency. A sense of What Is Right and the grit and determination to do it no matter how difficult. Many of Carla Kelly’s heroes excel in sheer, unadulterated decency. Some might appear to be beta heroes at first glance, but underneath, there’s a moral code that demands the courage and resolve of the most alpha of alpha males.

Last year my writing persona gave to the real me your book for Christmas and I loved it. So I can’t wait to get my hands on this next one to add to my writing resource collection. Quote away if you’d like!

I think that the main traits that I adore in my hero’s is how they don’t necessarily see the flaws but the great things the female protagonist offers. He see’s her as the epitome of beauty no matter what societies variation of beauty is at that moment. Its not that he loves her because she’s flawless, but he loves because those ‘flaws’ make her who she is.

The other thing I love is when a hero will do anything it takes to protect her. When is only focus is on her and he comes to save the day. I mean really who doesn’t want to be rescued and loved unconditionally?

Oh and of course an epic magical wang of instant orgasm is never a hardship either!

security word: right 68 (does that make 69 wrong?)

In him: sensuality, sense of humor, honorable, open-mindedness plus steely resolve in a conflict, capable of tenderness, able to listen, doesn’t care whether or not the heroine is a virgin, is not a complete rake, at home in his own skin, romantic [or at least tries to be]

In her: feisty [or at least strong], not a shrinking violet, educated [even if self-taught or ‘worldly’ wisdom], not ‘pure and virginal’ [unless the hero is as well], kind, loving, sensual.

My two favorite characters would have to be from Kleypas’ newer romance, Married by Morning.  Why? No other characters have stuck with me quite like Leo and Catharine Marks.  Leo has charisma.  In fact, he’s an enigma. When first introduced to his character at the beginning of Kleypas’ series, he’s heartbroken, has shown such a depth of feeling for a person, but after her death we see him fall so hard. He can be sharp tongued, yet he’s always there for his sisters. He almost burned down their house with his sorrow, but he’s so intense, and so honest, I can’t find fault with him. He’s redeemable, shows compassion, humor, pride in himself yet also in his family. 

Catharine Marks shows the same traits. She hides behind a rough, but mousy exterior, yet she can handle Leo’s barbs and helps pave the way for the family to get over Leo’s tragedy and soon himself to where he can help Marks when her life is threatened.  It’s the antagonism we feel between them, yet the inevitable sparks that we can’t wait to fly! They have their downfalls, yet they readily admit them. And they emit such charisma even at their worst moments that we can’t help but love them unconditionally.

So, what makes a hero? A heroine?  An essential trait that makes us all human, makes us all aware that some things are beyond are control and that’s emotion.  The complexity of our hearts to deny it completeness and wholeness yet our inevitable desire to pull ourselves together, to believe in something better.  To believe in happiness.  It’s the journey - the ultimate quest - to redemption and love, and not simply in a romantic way.  It’s the zest for life in all its forms. It’s hope. Pure and simple.

I need my heroine to be clever and capable. I require it for a book to get my own personal A+ grade. I HATE when a heroine is depicted as waiting for the hero to come in and save her. Uh, no. She’s smart and clever; she is not just going to sit there and pray the hero realizes she missed their coffee date and therefore SHE HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED! Help her! Come on, now; it’s in your job description! Help her ‘cause the author couldn’t think of a single way for her to further her own escape while if it were the hero in danger he’d have the kidnapper under his heel.

Perhaps it’s not what they possess but what they don’t. When I met my husband I finally learned that there’s no such thing as perfect, but there’s perfect for you. In my opinion, not having unrealistic expectations give you a much better shot at being a hero to your significant other. What feels better than acceptance and appreciation? Things that drove my ex-boyfriends absolutely batshit insane don’t even hit his radar. Or he thinks they’re “cute” which is sometimes embarrassing but hey, I’ll take it. At least I make him laugh. Just my two cents - know everyone may not agree. And sorry if this is a rehash of an earlier comment - only have 10 minutes left on lunch and can’t read all the previous posts. Sure there’s all kinds great stuff up there though! :D

@James Lynch

There’s one trait that hasn’t been mentioned, and may not be a strict requirement, but is nevertheless fun: kinkiness.  ... It’s also fun when the heroine realizes that she’s sexy.

I found this comment particularly intriguing, because I’m not sure if this is either just a good trait for a hero or heroine to have, or this trait makes a character heroic.

For many traits, such as honor, trustworthiness, integrity, etc., they’re both: good for hero(ine) to have and make a character heroic if they have them.

Is sexiness one or the other or both?

I read a few comments and yes bravery and cleverness is VERY important in a hero. I think an excellent specimen is in Stephanie Laurens’ book “Devil’s Bride”, the main male character Sylvester Cynster. He’s sexy, intense, laconic, desirable, clever, and beneath all that, romantic! That’s the perfect hero.

As for the “female lead” in any romance book (I think you should call them the heroines) is a strong woman who many not know about her sexuality but she knows who she is a a person. She knows what she wants in life and doesn’t take shit from anyone. I’m going to stay within the book I suggested and give Honoria as a perfect example for a heroic female.

I don’t know about other readers but I enjoy when a strong female makes a strong male work for her love.

I think there is a potential hero/ heroine in any kind of character when they are transformed by love: love makes anything possible, less than love makes excuses.  I read that in a romance novel somewhere and it stuck. The whole premise and promise of romance fiction is the idea of the redemptive power of love….

Besides what listed above (smarts, or at least common sense, morality, humor, decency, a not very large sexual past for the heroes, heroines who save themselves, the caretaker heroes), I’ll add the “why” of the falling in love make a good hero. If he’s in love with her and listing why, and her (physical) beauty is at the top of the list, no matter how much I like the hero it always ruins it just slightly. I want the hero/ine to have someone they want to have dinner with twenty years down the line, not have sex with now. Physical attraction is usually important, but physical beauty is not.  As someone noted above, no one on this list has mentioned “must have dark eyes” or “wash-board abs” as a heroic trait, so I don’t like it when the hero falls in love because of beauty. (To clarify, saying “I love the way your brow crinkles when you’re angry” is different from “I love how you look”.) I want the heroes to love the heroines for a core part of their personality. For instance, the reason Rupert (from Mr. Impossible by Chase) is my favorite historical romance hero because of how he loves Daphne’s intelligence. (And Daphne is one of my favorite because she has that intelligence.) But he never once wanted her to be stupid, but rather wanted her to be as smart as she could, as she was. 

Sarah W: Amen! My favorite kind of heroines.

I have to admit, I love the alpha male. I love when a man is possessive, a bit jealous, and I LOVE when a hero has the bullocks to step up to the plate and make a dedicated pursuit of the heroine he wants, can handle a sticky situation and keep their head in a crisis (and not just the ‘the damsel’s in distress moments’ but those moments when feelings have to be admitted or when somebody has to be taken out). I hated Dain in Lord of the Scoundrels because he could not get over his feelings of repulsion towards his own child, and and would notnstep up to provide for him. I also cannot stand when the hero is mean and asshat-ish to the very end to the female, and at the end reveals his undying love. Nope. I have to feel the tension, the mutual desire and love (or at least attraction) along the story. I also have a weak spot for the romances where a hero has loved a heroine for years before owning up to it. (Like Lance in A Heart’s Victory)
But, if you are going to have an alpha male, you MUST, absolutely must, have a heroine willing to stick him in his place when he’s being over the top or or asshole-ish.  I love when a heroine will make a smart-ass comment when needed, to show the hero or the villian or even a secondary character what’s what. Ella Varner in Smooth Talking Stranger exemplified this for me. And the heroine, above all, has to have a modicum of intelligence. I love Daphne, from Mr. Impossible, because she has a brain. Or Jessica, from Spell of the Highlander.
But what makes a heroine stand out for me the most is when she has courage. She’ll fight back against the villian, fight her fear. I love Elena, in Bitten, because she’s willing to fight for Clay. When she slits a man’s wrists and leaves him to bleed out to get information about Clay’s whereabouts, I have never felt more respect for a heroine. She was willing to do anything for her man, because he needed her. Because she was tough enough to handle it. Or Lillian in Lisa Kleypas’s It Happened One Autumn, when she escapes her captor, or Haven, in Blue-Eyed Devil, who walked miles, only in her socks and an overbig T-shirt, to escape her abusive husband. These heroines I can respect, and these heroines I want to read more of. They have what it takes to go the distance.
And, if you found anything salvageable in the above, feel free to quote me.

If anything I write turns out to be usable, absolutely feel free to quote me and to edit as necessary.  If you don’t want to use my handle, let me know and I’ll email you my name.

In some ways it’s probably easier to mention some things that *don’t* work for me.  I HATE “with the fire of a thousand suns” the hero/ine who has loved the other person for years, or for ever (or at least since puberty), especially if they haven’t spent much time together before the opening of the book.  I find it creepy at best, more usually stalkerish, and sometimes downright pathological.  Rising Tides is the exception: I cringe every single time Grace or Ethan thinks about how long s/he has been in love with the other, but it doesn’t ruin the book for me because they do know and interact with one another, value what friendship they have, and have somewhat acceptable reasons for being afraid to start a relationship.

On the other hand,  I also don’t like books that take place over a terribly short period of time.  If the hero/ine falls in love within a few days or weeks of meeting the other person, I find myself in danger of spraining my eyeballs from rolling them so vigorously.

One of the reasons I love the In Death books is that Eve and Roarke’s relationship develops slowly.  Yes, they hop into bed very quickly, but it takes a long time for them truly to trust and to love one another.  That’s something that matters to me: I want to know that a relationship is growing over time - even if the author only gives occasional time references to indicate that a few weeks or a month have gone by - and that it is not springing into being like Athena from Zeus’s head.  I need to be able to believe that the relationship has a true foundation on which it is being built.

Something else that is important to me (in contemporaries, anyway) is that the hero/ine has a healthy attitude toward sex.  I’m not saying that both characters need to have had double-digit sex partners and indulged in every fetish known to man, but I can’t stand the books where a woman in her late twenties is still a virgin or has never had an orgasm, or where a man gets all chest-thumpy because he realizes he’s her first or has given her her first, or where oral sex or the lightest of bondage is treated as OhMyGod!scandalous.  (If I were to read a book wherein one or both of them were still virgin because of moral conviction, though - i.e., “Sex without love is fucking, and I’m not interested in just a fuck…but once I’m with someone I love I am going to be all over that!” - I would probably stand up and applaud.)

Something I do look for is that the hero/ine challenges the other person in some fundamental way.  It can be because s/he makes the other want to be a better person, or forces them to reevaluate their assumptions, or even just causes them to change their social behavior. 

One of the things that makes Mr. Darcy so appealing to me is his simple recognition that he had been rude, and that that rudeness is not okay.  To stick with Austen, I like Persuasion in part because both character have to reevaluate their past behavior and question why they made the choices they did.

In Bet Me, Cal challenges Min to accept herself and to see herself as desirable, while she forces him to take a closer look at how he’s always acted with women.

It’s definitely important to me that both characters have something to learn from the other or from their situation.  I need to believe that the relationship will be one of equals.  That doesn’t mean that there needs to be an exact balancing of the scales, but simply that there’s a convincing back-and-forth to their dynamic.  (That’s one of the reasons I’m not as fond of Emma: Mr. Knightley always seems like he’s waiting for Emma to catch on or catch up.)

I won’t elaborate on my other required traits, because they seem like they’ve already been covered in greater depth by others here.  To summarize, though, I want both characters to be intelligent; to have a sense of humor, whether through actually being funny or simply through being willing to laugh; and to have a strong sense of self.

....And just to clarify…when I say “a few weeks or a month” have gone by, I mean in between scenes, not from beginning to end of the book.

If I read your question correctly, you are not asking what “my” ideal traits for a hero/ine are, but rather, what seems to be the “Standard Package” of heroic traits in romance novels. You asked for “most common” and “essential.”

I’d have to say that above all other things, the most common trait I have observed in both the male and female “leads” in romance novels would be a strong sense of self. More often than not they are a little (or a lot) different than everyone else around them, and what makes them different is a strong part of what also ends up making them heroic.

There are other qualities as well that I would personally deem essential, but the above was the first thing that came to mind - and many many examples of novels/characters embodying this trait jump out at me, I’m sure they do for you as well.

I ever I say/type something you’d like to quote, have at it.
Melonie Johnson

My protagonists have to be smart. They don’t necessarily have to be brilliant, but they have to have some idea of what is going on around them. Morality, at least conventional morality, is optional, although some system of ethics is desirable, if only for consistency.
My favorite hero is Gil from Girl Genius (which is not entirely a romance, but certainly has a strong romance subplot). He’s smart. He makes some big mistakes, and is not always on the heroine’s side - there is a very real possibility that she could destroy all of Europe, and he’s not going to let his love distract him from that. But he does care about Agatha, and he is going to figure out what is going and then act accordingly. And he never lets his divided loyalties to his father and Agatha destroy either relationship.

And Agatha herself is smart and strong. Agatha does not require anyone’s help. She often gets it, and she appreciates it, but she would do what needs to be done regardless. Agatha has plenty of reasons to be angry with Gil’s father, but she does not let that get between her and Gil. She even hopes to reconcile with Gil’s father.

Early in the story, Gil is showing off his airship. It starts falling. Agatha starts ripping pieces off in midair and criticizing his design. They’re both entirely involved in improving it, forgetting about falling to their deaths. They understand the world the same way, and Gil takes criticism really well. They’re reasonable people. And they clearly make each other happy. What more could you want?
You can quote me as Kate.

I would say that the most essential trait for a romance hero/heroine for me is that by the end of the book (though preferably sometime before the last few pages) they have recognized and accepted a commitment that is irrevocable and solid.  A commitment that includes endless support through any crisis, any problem, any disagreement.  When I finish a book I want to believe that the couple will always end of standing strong together no matter what obstace, large or small is thrown in thier way.

I have to admit, I love the alpha male. I love when a man is possessive, a bit jealous, and I LOVE when a hero has the bullocks to step up to the plate and make a dedicated pursuit of the heroine he wants

WELL SAID Genevieve!!

[quote…I LOVE when a hero has the bullocks…]

So, I guess that makes you a fan of Western romance?

Personally, I find the Tao of Steve covers most Romance novels: Be desireless. Be excellent. Be gone.

1. Convince me that the Romantic Leads admire each other as more than the possible source of their next orgasm.

2. Convince me that they’re worthy of being loved and capable of loving in return.

3. Convince me that they’re better off together than they are apart.

If an author manages to pull all that off by the end, I’ll accept writing an honest letter, or bribing an asshole to marry your sister, as a heroic act. It’s all context.

I would say for me it is very dependent on my mood. I like a lot of traits in my heroes and heroines, and some stand out when I am in the mood for it. Sometimes, I am in the mood of tortured heroes and heroines with dilemmas and secrets (actually I love this ‘tortured’ type!It is great for melodrama and tears!Hehehe). Some other times I love quirky, a-bit off centre heroines (spell that, just HEROINES). Quirky heroes just somehow don’t cut it for me. But I love heroes with sense of humour, like a lot of Susan Elizabeth Phillips’ heroes. Her football heroes are just plain crazy hilarious and I absolutely adore them.

I also love dominant heroes. NOT sadistic but dominant. They know who they are and what they want. One thing about heroines that I just absolutely cannot stand are pansy heroines, those with no backbones who cried at every slightest thing, who flail in misery while facing every adversary and who just cannot, I repeat, cannot, even once, stand up for herself (yes, even a minor teeny-weeny rebellion counts). So, I like a heroine who is at least reasonable. Dependant, I understand, but cowardice and stupidity, well, they might just as well go and kill themselves off. I read romance for ideals, not reality :)

This is probably nothing to do with traits, but I want chemistry. I don’t mind slow-building chemistry but I’ve read too many romance characters that somehow just don’t suit. There is just no heat, no love, no understanding, no respect, no nothing. Like both hero and heroine who have certain personalities and managed just co-exist. Like ‘Hey, we’re somehow in the same page!Wow!’.

I would say faithfulness is a must for both hero and heroines. For certain circumstances, say if at the start of the story it is a marriage of convenience and they somehow grow to love each other, yes, I can tolerate unfaithfulness. And I will only tolerate it if the hero (unfaithful), grovels sufficiently (you will know when they do) and the writer managed to package the whole story brilliantly, that in the end there is a growth in both characters due to that episode of unfaithfulness. For example, Laurie Bright wrote Perfect Marriage so wonderfully, it is now in my absolute keeper library. One of my pet peeve is how some heroes who sleep with legions of women become insensibly crazy when they find/suspect that their wife cheats/not a virgin. I mean, come on, you are not a virgin yourself, grow up. It is just a piece of membrane. I know, I know, period romance (historical, regency etc) demands ‘perfection’ aka hymenally-intact (is there such word, hymenally?), but get over it. It will never grow back once lost. While I am in the I-will-keep-that-for-now-until-I-find-someone-to-love-and-do-the-forever-after team, I go stir crazy when the heroes keep blathering on and on about the heroines unfaithfulness, immodesty, sluttines, bla-bla-bla for the rest of 200 pages. 5 to 10 pages, yes I understand somehow, more than that, well, I’ll just toodle to the ending pages shall I?

I also adore the non-mainstream heroines. While I love hot,  handsome, titled, rich, playboy, relatively young, virile, tall, did I mention hot, heroes, I just love love love heroines who don’t fit the general mold. From chubby heroines (Mina of Jennifer Crusie’s Bet Me. anyone?) to skinny flat-chested ones (Rachel Gibson’s Jane from See Jane Score) to plain ones. I love them all. I feel connected to them (hey I am attractive in my own way *snickers*). I mean, the man is a god already, give me some human for heroine okay? Not everyone can be super smart, super-model-like heroine. Give us normal girls some break okay?

Hmm, one last thing I look for in heroes is perfection. Hahahaha, I am human okay. While I love imperfect heroines, I want perfect heroes. No wussy, short man for me please. While he can be sensitive, I don’t one no doormat. Alpha, sensitive, respectful, ultra-hot, manly hero for me please. After all, this is romance. I get to choose my heroes :)

For me, the perfect romantic hero is a creature of fantasy – the unattainable blend of the characteristics and traits I value (and wish for) most in the opposite sex, tempered with some sort of flaw (or flaws).

I have to say, I’m not really a fan of the Byronic Hero (Heathcliff’s a right wanker, as far as I’m concerned) but, having said that, I’m definitely a fan of strong, Alpha men – provided they are pared with strong, intelligent women who are able to stand up to them. In my opinion, there is nothing worse in a romance than a mismatch in the emotional strength of the characters.

As far as the classic heroes go, whenever Darcy and Rochester appear on the page (or screen), my little heart goes pitter pat. More recently, however, Adam Hauptman (from Patricia Briggs’s Mercy Thompson series) and Richelle Mead’s Dimitri (Vampire Academy) have been stealing the show.

a)  fine
b)  Annabel

And I really should have checked my spelling before posting the above ...  ‘paired’.

It’s a tough question. I don’t think there’s any trait that no author could write badly, or that no author could write well. For my personal likes:

1: Fortitude. This is different from the angry, shouty “strength” you see in a lot of classic romance heroes (and lately in equally tedious heroines). It’s the “No. You move.” attitude that doesn’t shout, but has certain things that just won’t be tolerated.

2: Self-reliance. Though characters probably will have issues, damage and baggage and I’m fine with that, I need to believe they functioned before they met the love of their life. I don’t want to feel that someone just hung around in a void until they saw their partner, or that they’re willing to completely discard the good things about their old life because only love matters now!

3: Sensible. Not boringly sensible, but able to recognise when they’re jumping to conclusions or being irrational. It makes for better plotting, since you can’t pad out the book for a hundred pages with a problem they could solve with one minute of sitting down and telling each other what they know.

4: Little things. Big heroic sacrifices and steam-out-the-ears orgasms are okay, but what makes a romance actually romantic for me is little details that show the characters are coming to know and trust each other—perhaps without realising they’re doing so. Banter, in-jokes, recognising the subtle signs that someone else is stressed or unhappy, feeling free to be silly or spontaneous around the other, that sort of thing. A lot of my most romantic moments are the ones where one character gets across that they simply know the other.

Well Sarah I think it would be better if your hero and heroine moved from the orthodox culture of heroes to a more realistic view. However, I do think that love stories should end in Love and stress the importance of strength and faithfulness.

I love very strong heroines like Eve Dallas in the In Death series. The most important traits to me in heroes, both male and female, are humor, passion, brutal honesty, loyalty and strength.

I already had a go at this and probably made a muddle of it.  But I remembered my all time go-to love them couples that embody it all   MARY AND WOLF MACKENZIE.  Both have rock solid morality , he changes for her and then saves her life.
    Cait

My favourite hero in the world is Ossin, from Robin Mckinley’s Deerskin.

He is himself, and his self is perfect. He’s not loud and annoying, he’s definitely not cursed with Angry Boner. He cares without being a stalker. (Oh what a shocker!) I love how he is a round and complete character who shows his feelings with his actions and not Loud Statements of Baseless Fact Punctuated With Many Exclamation Marks.

Deerskin/Lissla Lissar is a great heroine because she tries to take care of herself and those in her life as best she can.

Their story is so touching and grabs me so strongly because as I read it (over and over and over again) I see imperfect people doing their best during a very interesting time in their life. Not that I wouldn’t mind reading a sequel, even if it was just about the next litter of puppies and running the country for a while.

When I read, I want to feel like I’m following along interesting people during interesting times. I like protagonists who are smart enough, caring enough, and vulnerable enough to be open and honest with each other. I do hate stupid meaningless conflict, but I like it when if feels like people take time to get to know each other and realize what they love about the other person. I need to know why and what causes two people to be drawn to each other.

My captcha is hope59. I’ve got more hope than that to keep looking for good stories. I’m ok with digging. :-)

1) if you like, please do quote
2) Andrea, or An.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this in the past, because I find the traits of heroes and heroines fascinating. 

I would have to say that the two authors who I constantly go back to because their heroes and heroines always make me think, “THAT is what a hero/ine should be like” are Karen Marie Moning and Susan Elizabeth Phillips.  In particular, Drustan MacKeltar from “Kiss of the Highlander” by KMM and probably all of the Bonner men from “Nobody’s Baby but Mine” and “Dream a Little Dream” by SEP. 

The reason these heroes are so great to me is that I see real men in them.  They aren’t just the fantasy of what I would like a man to be (although they are that to an extent).  They recognize their faults, even the emotional faults, and own to them without any real struggle—even if they don’t always own up to them to anyone but themselves.  That recognition of their issues makes them just a little more real. Maybe the best way to describe that is that these heroes have emotional maturity.  They take responsibility for themselves and for their families and for their heroines. 

I also find that heroes and heroines who have FUN together are my favorites.  Whether they have fun because they give each other crap all the time (obviously, they have to do that without and mean-spiritedness), or because they can laugh and play games in bed, or just because they allow their goofy side out when they are with their hero/ine, couples in romance novels who have fun are just delightful.  Not enough couples do—and not that I don’t like the couples who don’t concentrate on having fun together, but I’m more likely to go back and re-read a book multiple times when the protagonists can laugh together, even if they don’t always love each other.

For my heroines, I definitely appreciate the slightly geeky woman or the self-deprecating woman.  Someone who is just a little too smart for her own good or who has screwed up in some way in the past and knows how to tease herself after the fact.  Again, both KMM and SEP do this wonderfully.  All of KMM’s heroines are a little introverted and far too smart sometimes.  I want to be as smart as they are!  And SEP does both the nerdy heroine and the self-deprecating heroine wonderfully in “Nobody’s Baby But Mine” and “Ain’t She Sweet?” perfectly.  All of her heroines are smart, a little sassy (or a lot), and don’t take crap from other people.  Good heroines are ones who are grounded to reality in some way, even if they don’t always seem like it.  They are women who I think, “I wish she was my friend.” 

Quote me?  Sure.
Name? Rachel Beithon

Common and essential traits (in no particular order)    Adult, personal integrity/honor, be a good friend, intelligent, sense of humor.
     
I find all of that sexy.  Wrap it up in a tall, dark & handsome wrapper for him – I don’t need superstud.  Romance heroes have been getting taller and taller over the years.  Pretty soon they will be seven feet tall with foot long dicks.  I like my heroes a tad more realistic.  Six feet tall is fine, well hung is appreciated.  Some of these guys are getting too big to be accommodated by the average vagina.  The heroine, of course, looks remarkably like me.

Specifically which characters: Dane and Jessica in ‘Lord of Scoundrels’, Min & Cal in ‘Bet Me’.

I like my hero/heroines to know who they are, what direction they are taking in their lives.  To be self aware and confident in their abilities.  Then, I like to see them be gobsmacked by the introduction of the other person in their well conceived life.  They initially just can’t come to terms with the person they meet who is destined to be their life partner.  I like to see them struggle with it, reject it, try to manipulate their own perceptions to include this new aspect of their existence.  Then accept it, expand with it, revel in it, live in it.

I like to see character growth. Good story arcs. In a well written book I am involved with the characters; I am moved by their realizations, taken on a journey with them.

All too often for me the book ends at the HEA point – I like to see what happens next.  It may be why I think books in series are so satisfying.  The Eve/Roarke relationship continues.  I am newly hooked on Deanna Raybourn now and I think that is why – I want to see these characters grow into their relationships.

These are characters I want to spend time with.  I want to love who the hero is, and while I don’t necessarily need to ‘be’ the heroine, I want her to be someone I would want to know and hang out with.

We as readers get to chose who we ‘hang out with’ and who we spend money on.  It is beginning to sound like a date, and to take that a step further, a new book or author is like a blind date.

I could go on and on, but will close with my thanks every night that I go to bed with my own personal hero of 18 years.

The fictional men I’ve fallen in love with are legion, but none of the ones from literature are from romance novels.  Anonymously, I will confess to Hector and Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, for whatever that’s worth.  As far as romance novel characters go, I’m easy.  I’m perfectly happy with just about any sort of hero or heroine, provided they act as their characters are described.  I adore both Freddie from Cotillion and the Duke from These Old Shades, because although they are nothing alike they were written by Heyer, who can do no wrong.  I can list traits I think I want in a prospective partner, but they inevitably turn out to be irrelevant.  Flaws probably matter more than positive attributes, but what really drives the selection process is a mystery.  Why did I fall for Hector, or Andrei, or anyone else?  Best I can explain is because I couldn’t help it.  And I don’t need a heroine I can identify with.  I’m far more like Eleanor than Lizzy, alas, but still prefer Pride and Prejudice.  I am not at all personally attracted to Darcy, but he’s perfect for her, making the story intensely satisfying for me. I go through on average half a dozen romance novels in a week, and it’s rare that character (or anything else) stands out.  With that volume, they can’t all be great, but I don’t mind.  I like the pattern more than the specifics.  I seek out an author not because I’m hoping for a specific type of character again, but because I like the characterization in general.
1)yes
2)anonymous

Devotion, respect, and trust.  That certain spark between a couple that leaves you knowing they’d do anything for each other.  That this isn’t a couple where one of them feels the need to protect the other constantly; they know their partner will have their back in a fight, plain and simple.  There’s no stupid misunderstandings, no abandonment of trust when the chips are down.  They’re not afraid to vocalize their problems, and they know thier partner will accept their faults so there’s no reason to hide them.  A true partnership.

As for who does the saving? Simple. They save each other.  One way or another.

In a good novel plot and character are interwoven, so it is difficult to talk about one without the other.

The defining heroic characteristic for me in a romance is the ability to overcome problems in order to reach the happy ending.  The perfect example of this is Flowers in the Storm by Laura Kinsale, where Jervaulx is the ultimate Alpha male laid low by illness and by an unknowing society’s response to that illness, and Maddie breaks out of the constraints of overwhelming social conditioning.

The ability to overcome problems is pretty heroic for me in real life, too.

Yes of course, and Faellie.

I respect and enjoy characters who are strong and honorable..not that they necessarily always do the right thing, but that they are inherently good people. I think it all boils down to the fact that I don’t want to read about characters/stories that I don’t want to imagine myself in. I want the story to engulf me and make me wish I was living it.  And honestly, who would imagine themselves in a bad story?

My favorite characters are Jamie and Claire from the Outlander series. I love their strength and especially how no matter the struggle, they stay true to their character.

My ruminations led me to consideration on physiological rather than psychological traits.

Except in those (too rare for my taste) contemporary novels where the heroines bulge and sag like the rest of us, the typical romance heroines figure is a thing of perfection. So just how do they maintain those wasp waists (around which their beaus can easily wrap their manly hands), and the slender go-on-for-ever legs? South Beach? Atkins? What is the romance heroine’s secret? My inexpert consideration of romance novels has led me to believe in the existence of a HEA Diet.

There is the HEA FAST. This purge and detoxification process is often the plight of orphans and destitute young ladies with miserly parents and guardians. Closely aligned with the HEA FAST, is the HEA Bread and Water regime, or skipped meal, once again enforced by miserly parents and guardians when the heroine resists marriage to ugly/old/dastardly men.

Many romance heroines apply HEA PORTION CONTROL. How often does a romance heroine find herself in an exotic location, and served a meal prepared by a master chef (billionaires, princes, sheiks and similar heroes do tend to dine on only the finest foods). Invariably, the turmoil of the moment, evening, relationship, hidden pasts and secrets renders even the finest meal inedible - the heroine can force down a few mouthfuls at most. While the savour of the dishes may be missed, this approach to meal-time results in only a fraction of the calories that might otherwise be ingested.

Most diet plans include physical activity. Any maiden forced to flee from the machinations of the ugly/old/dastardly mentioned above is likely to burn a significant amount of calories. The most obvious reason romance heroines keep slim is via the HEA BIG O CALORIE BURN. A quick Google search took me to WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex):

Thirty minutes of sex burns 85 calories or more. It may not sound like much, but it adds up: 42 half-hour sessions will burn 3,570 calories, more than enough to lose a pound. Doubling up, you could drop that pound in 21 hour-long sessions.
“Sex is a great mode of exercise,” says Patti Britton, PhD, a Los Angeles sexologist and president of the American Association of Sexuality Educators and Therapists. It takes work, from both a physical and psychological perspective, to do it well, she says.
Since the average romance heroine orgasm is anything but average – the bed shakes, the world shifts, the heavens move, the stars align – and are often part of all night coupling marathons, a HEA calorie burn could be exponential. These marathon tend to be all-over (each other, the house/mansion/office/castle/villa) workouts, so no doubt muscles get toned.
In all, the HEA diet seems to involve a balance between food and exercise. This December 31st, my yearly resolution will involve following the HEA Diet – albeit vicariously (actually fleeing from the dastardly might result in spilled adult beverages – turning pages does not).

I love quick witted dialog and a smart-ass of both sexes. Georgette Heyer, Nora Roberts/J D Robb, Jennifer Crusie, Susan Elizabeth Phillips and Roberta Gellis pretty much nail that on a consistent basis. Their characters are strong and not afraid to do what’s necessary. The characters are also honorable, loyal and loving and, usually, have wonderful senses of humor. I don’t think you need much more than that.

I like a dark, brooding or emotionally stunted hero. The books I keep and reread over and over again usually have a hero who is in need of a savior, so to speak. So naturally my heroines are those “stand by your man” types who pretty much put up with near torture while this guys is attempting to “find” himself.

1) James Pernell from Devil’s Web (Mary Balogh) This book doesn’t get great reviews, but James is so deciously messed up. It makes for an emotional read, it’s not light hearted, but it’s still so satisfying to see the story pan out.

2) Sheridan Drake from Seize The Fire (Kinsale). Sheridan…he’s one of my all time favorites. So many issues to work though. Ah and the end where Olympia says “I love you no matter what.” Yes! Yes!

3) Derrick Craven from Dreaming of You (Kleypas). If anyone needed a savior, it was Derrick.

4) Wulfric Bedwyn from Slightly Dangerous (Balogh). I mention this book all the time. Wulfric is also emotionally “locked up”. It takes a special type of heroine to get him to loosen up and question his prejudices as they relate to his position in life.