The Flawed Heroine

Thanks to the crew of readers who forwarded me this link: the Guardian posted an article by Toni Jordan, who related her Top Ten Flawed Romantic Heroines.

For Jordan, “flawed” isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and some of her examples make me want to read the book, like The Perfect Rake by Anne Gracie. Bitchery favorite Ayla from the Jean M. Auel series makes an appearance, as do Beatrice from Much Ado About Nothing and Miss Haversham from Great Expectations.

There’s so many different ways to define “flawed,” from “Oh, honey,” to “I want to kill you because you’re an idiot,” to the heroine who makes genuine mistakes and learns from them, even through awkward scenes that are viscerally embarrassing for her and for the reader.

Among my favorites of the heroines who are far from perfect but aren’t a complete mess, either? Merlin from Midsummer Moon, who is stubborn and a genius, but often a complete ditz, is among my favorites, but with Merlin, I admire the fact that she’s light years smarter than me, but also clueless in other regards. I’m also a sucker for the “terribly stubborn” heroine who has to learn to bend, particularly when she’s set against an equally stubborn hero who also has to bend. But too much stubbornness for its own sake can easily become grating. It’s all part, I think, of the high standards to which readers hold their heroines. She can’t be too perfect, but she can’t be too stupid, either. “Flawed but still awesome” is a very, very difficult balance to strike.

What flawed heroines do you adore? And what types of flaws do you enjoy or loathe?

Categorized:

Random Musings

Comments are Closed

  1. Ok, I’ll own up to having a soft spot for Ayla from the Jean Auel books.  Yes she’s a total mary sue, yes, she invented everything from how to make fire to bows and arrows and birth control, but dammit, she’s a fighter and she went through a lot to get to her HEA.  I don’t hold it against her that Auel seems to want to make her the bestest, wonderfulest, hostess with the mostest.  Not her fault. 😉

    But Ayla? No way. I did like Ayla – in the first two books – but she is hardly a flawed heroine, I mean, that’s why I had to grit my teeth in order to slog through the rest of the series. She’s TOO perfect, obnoxiously so, making her totally unrealistic and therefore, eventually, unenjoyable. Whoever said “mary sue”? YES. That.

    I started the CLAN books when I was twelve.  At the time I was both in awe and skeptical at Ayla .  ONE girl could be the cause behind ALL of these amazing events and discoveries?! LOL!  It’s interesting that she is on the list.

    I must prefer to read flawed heroines…hope I’m doing a good job in writing them too!

  2. Quercus says:

    I have to agree that Ayla from the Earth’s Children series = Mary Sue at the Dawn of Time.  Doesn’t Know How Great She Is does not equal Flawed.  I read all the books but always thought that the first book, where she was constantly treated as an outcast, was much better than any of the later ones.

  3. CEmerson says:

    Emma Woodhouse.  Snobbish, not given to introspection, sure she knows what’s best for everybody.  I always feel a little sad at the end, when she sees the error of her ways.

    In general I think writers often cheat with their “flawed” heroines/heroes by just giving them more of what’s essentially a good quality:  she’s too fiery/independent/hard-headed; i.e., strong.  I would love to read more stories with heroines who have flaws that run the risk of being genuinely off-putting.  Hypocrisy, for example.  That’s a fascinating flaw that I find to be severely underrused.

  4. Jody W. says:

    Sugar Beth Carey!  That’s the name.  I am so bad with names.  She was the gal who came to mind when I read this post.

    It’s interesting to me what “flaws” are permissable in a hero as compared to a heroine—or what makes a heroine “flawed” as compared to what makes a hero “flawed”.

  5. Wow, Phaedre?  Really?  Her “flaws” were really kind of lame, like, “Oh, I am so cursed by being this damnably good in bed, as well as brilliant at politics!”  I mean, those books were great, you don’t have to have a totally flawed protagonist to be a good book, but let’s back up the Mary Sue train on that one.

    I like flaws in heroines, so long as they aren’t of the TSTL variety.  Especially in a long running series.  If your heroine is, hypothetically, a private detective and is always in a lot of danger, but she also does habitually dumb stuff, after fourteen books the reader is going to start to think, “Okay, you locked you keys in your car at the worst possible moment AGAIN?  Maybe this isn’t the line of work for you.  Maybe something more along the lines of pastry chef.”

    Or, if the character is really flawed, and it’s okay because everyone finds her flaws so OH GOLLY GEE cute.  Like Bridget Jones, before the author destroyed the story line in the newspaper columns.

  6. For a writer, utilizing certain flaws, especially in genre fiction, can be dangerous. Let’s take hypocrisy. If it’s deliberate, in a romance you risk having the reader wonder what the hero can possibly see in such a two-faced bitch. Remember, that’s one of the things some people dislike about Scarlett O’Hara—that she presented a charming face while she was stabbing people in the back. And I suspect you’ll find a lot more people who think she got her just desserts than think she was screwed by a system that had no place for “uppity women.”

    In other words, most readers are willing to accept a heroine who’s so fiercely independent she can’t and won’t ask for help—or accept it when it’s offered. Or one who’s terrified of a relationship because she’s had nothing but bad ones. Or those who, like Amber in Forever Amber are forced to become “evil” because their culture leaves them no choice if they want to survive.

    So, to have a hypocritical heroine, especially in a romance, you would have to lay the foundation for it very carefully lest you lose reader empathy for the character.

  7. AgTigress says:

    I’m too busy raising my eyebrows at the idea of Miss Havisham as a heroine to come up with a favorite of my own.

    I emphatically agree, Snarkhunter!  And I notice that the original article even misspells the name – it is, as you have written, Havisham, not Haversham.

    However, it is worth pointing out that Miss Havisham becomes a rather more engaging character than her Dickensian original in Jasper Fforde’s Lost in a Good Book.
    🙂

  8. Joanne says:

    Forgive me but I’m still not convinced that Eve Dallas is flawed… she seems pretty perfect to me….

    I did think of another moody, rude and mean heroine that grew on me until I was cheering for her …. Cat Dupree from Sharon Sala’s Cut Throat and Nine Lives. Cat started out as a bitch and remained a bitch through two books… albeit a sometimes lovable & understandable and often funny heroine but still a rude & ornery bitch.

  9. Ciara says:

    I haven’t read a single one of the books on her list! Oh dear. More TBR. Personally, I think ALL Heroines and Heroes need to start off the book flawed, and then transform over the course of the novel to be “better because of loving you”. A good story must have this transformation, in which the caterpillar becomes a butterfly.

  10. Beth says:

    Scarlett kicks ass!

  11. Suze says:

    Elena from Kelley Armstrong’s Bitten

    Although I’m not sure if her habit of fleeing from Clay and her transformational circumstances is a flaw so much as a sensible reaction to some seriously fucked-up events.  She is one of the few romantic heroines I’m aware of who start the story off in a live-in relationship with a non-hero man.

    And I guess it’s not technically a romance, but it sure feels like one to me.

  12. KimberlyD says:

    Suze, I love Elena and KA is one of my favorite authers ever, but I don’t think Elena is a flawed heroine. Sure, she’s not perfect but she doesn’t have any major character defects. You and I would probably run from Clay too, if he had turned us into a werewolf.

    Jody W.-YES on Sugar Beth Carey. I hated her at the beginning. I was still lukewarm by the middle of the book. But by the end, I had to love her.

  13. SonomaLass says:

    I agree with CEmerson above that a lot of the flaws in romance characters are “more of what’s essentially a good quality:  she’s too fiery/independent/hard-headed; i.e., strong.”  But I think that’s true of most human beings, too.  Our flaws are particular personality traits taken to an unpleasant extreme; we are out of balance in one way or another.  Selfish is one extreme, overly self-sacrificing is another, and the “ideal” balance is in the middle.  Some scholar (I’d have to get out the thesis research to find his name) once argued that the only truly “balanced” character in Shakespeare’s plays was Horatio—and come on, how boring is he!?!  I think perfect characters are dull.

    In thinking about this, I’m starting to realize that I prefer “slightly flawed” heroines.  TSTL is a pretty low threshold for me—I’d much rather have an intelligent heroine who lacks social skills, grace, or the ability to control her temper.  Katherine in Taming of the Shrew, if I can say that without rousing too much ire about how that HEA is achieved. 

    I like my heroines feisty and fierce, and that can be very “flawed” behavior, especially in historicals.  That’s another line that’s important to draw—what do characters in the book see as a flaw, as opposed to what the reader sees?  I don’t think it’s a “real” flaw unless the reader perceives it as such; if it is something like standing up for herself, and that keeps her from being married to some idiot, then her father or whoever may judge that she’s “flawed,” but you know the reader doesn’t think so!  I like it when heroines cross the line and do things that aren’t just violations of the social code, but that also make me think, “damn, that was a mistake!”

  14. CEmerson says:

    I suppose what endears hypocrisy to me is the fundamental lack of self-knowledge that goes with it.  You’re right, Elizabeth Burton, I don’t want to read about a two-faced bitch.  But a heroine with a big enough blind spot that she can disapprove of someone else’s behavior without recognizing that she’s guilty of the same thing; a heroine whose author allows her to look a bit ridiculous every now and then, is a heroine I can get behind.

    (Lack of self-understanding gets me every time.  Off the romance topic, but Stevens in The Remains of the Day is one of my all-time favorite narrators for this reason.)

    Also… I’d like to see a few more heroines guilty of vanity.  Vain of their face, their figure, their brain, their distinguished family, their perfectly demure manners; whatever.  That’s a good prickly flaw for me.

  15. Lizzie (greeneyed fem) says:

    If your heroine is, hypothetically, a private detective and is always in a lot of danger, but she also does habitually dumb stuff, after fourteen books the reader is going to start to think, “Okay, you locked you keys in your car at the worst possible moment AGAIN?”

    Jennifer Armintrout—this is exactly what put me off of the Aimee LeDuc mystery series. I didn’t even need fourteen books—I think it was three. Aimee the amazing PI was trying to run from some bad guy in heels AGAIN, and I thought—after three books of near-death experiences, wouldn’t you switch to wearing sneakers on a stakeout? Jeez Louise.

    I agree with everyone about Elizabeth Bennett and Emma Woodhouse as flawed heroines. Jane Austen in general rocks at FHs: I’d include Anne Eliot (part of me wants to see her admit that she was wrong to let Lady Whashername persuade her to give up Wentworth, but she never does), and Catherine Morland from Northanger Abbey. I know some people see Catherine as foolish and immature, and not good enough for Henry Tilney, but I really empathize with her. I’ve been suckered into false friendships by taking people at face value, and I loved to imagine myself as the heroine of a book or movie when I was growing up. She’s very real to me.

    For the record, I can’t stand Scarlett O’Hara. 🙂

  16. snarkhunter says:

    However, it is worth pointing out that Miss Havisham becomes a rather more engaging character than her Dickensian original in Jasper Fforde’s Lost in a Good Book.

    True! That’s a great book, and Miss Havisham rocks it. 🙂

  17. Black Val says:

    Not sure if this counts as romance, but I’m very fond of Ista from Paladin of Souls.  She’s proud, bitter, angry, and recovering from years of having been considered seriously mentally ill, and having been betrayed on a very personal level by her husband.

  18. Wryhag says:

    Miss freakin’ Havisham is a romantic heroine?  I don’t think so.

    I vote for giving her the boot and putting Hester Prynne in her place.

  19. Elizabeth Wadsworth says:

    I think heroines such as Scarlett O’Hara and Amber StClare (of Forever Amber fame) are less “flawed” than products of a mindset that persisted through roughly the first two thirds of the twentieth century:  that a woman could be strong, independent, and financially successful, OR she could find a loving partner and live happily ever after, but never both.  As I recall, it wasn’t until the mid-1970’s that the idea that a woman could Have It All really started to take off, and then it took another couple of decades for popular fiction to catch up….

  20. Lori G. Armstrong says:

    WOW, Robinjn and Silver James – high praise indeed for my character Julie Collins to be spoken in the same breath as Eve Dallas. I’m humbled.

    I’ve been asked this question a billion times, why don’t I fix Julie’s flaws? And oddly enough, it almost always comes from… women. Readers want that character growth, the ability to see the changes from book to book, yet…they don’t want the character to change too much because you lose that character’s individuality that brought them to the series in the first place. So Julie still smokes. Still swears. Still enjoys the hell out of sex. Still speaks her mind. I chose to see those characteristics as quirks, not flaws.

    It’s a fine line to straddle.

    For the record, I’m in the Scarlett O’Hara fan club side. Love her or hate her, she is one of the greatest flawed female characters ever.

    Cool topic, SB!

  21. Ziggy says:

    Great topic.

    – Not the heroine of the book, although she gets most of the action, but Rose Mortmain, from I Capture the Castle by Dodie Smith. Wonderful book but I wasn’t a huge fan of Cassandra – she could be annoyingly vulnerable and naive. Rose was tougher, more cynical, and more attuned to the reality of their situation. Which is why she decides to marry for money. A less skilled author could have made her into an unsympathetic character, but I loved her! And I enjoyed how Twoo Wuv takes her by surprise, just as much as it does Cassandra. I was glad she got her happy ending.
    – Elizabeth Bennett, nuff said!
    – Bathsheba Everdene, Far from the Madding Crowd. I enjoyed the way her character matures from a vain and flighty young girl to someone much more aware and responsible – but I like the ambiguity Hardy puts into it – we feel sad for the innocence she’s lost.

  22. orannia says:

    Hmmmm, I guess it really depends on what you interpret the word ‘flaws’ to mean. What drives me completely nuts is a heroine that doesn’t learn and evolve….IIRC someone mentioned a heroine chasing someone in heels? See, that’s just an accident waiting to happen! I will admit, sometimes the learning process is slow, but a stagnating flaw just reminds me of stagnating water, which breeds mosquitoes 🙂

    I’m currently re-reading Lover Eternal, and I have to say I really like the heroine – Mary. I feel she is flawed – she is determined not to let people in…and it drives the hero (Rhage) up the wall. But she does overcome that….eventually 🙂

    orannia

    PS Oh, and I have to say I just loved The Perfect Rake!

  23. robinjn says:

    I’ve been asked this question a billion times, why don’t I fix Julie’s flaws? And oddly enough, it almost always comes from… women. Readers want that character growth, the ability to see the changes from book to book, yet…they don’t want the character to change too much because you lose that character’s individuality that brought them to the series in the first place. So Julie still smokes. Still swears. Still enjoys the hell out of sex. Still speaks her mind. I chose to see those characteristics as quirks, not flaws.

    Lori I read this just before going out to dinner and ruminated and you’re right (and of course you would be, you’re the writer!) Julie has quirks. She also has flaws and real issues to deal with and I love the way she and Tony struggle separately and together to find a relationship that will work for both of them.

    [fangurrrlll gush]As you can tell I’m a huge fan and I’ll be quite disappointed when the series ends, but I’ll be looking forward to anything new you put out![/fangurrrlll gush]

    submit word size 79. Lordy I hope not! I’ve worked so hard this past year!

  24. Susan/DC says:

    My nominee for Flawed Heroine of the Year (or past 200 years) is Becky Sharp from Thackeray’s “Vanity Fair”.  She’s smart and selfish and far more interesting than that milquetoast, Amelia (she was so bland I’m not even sure I remember her name correctly).

  25. Lizzie (greeneyed fem) says:

    Ooo, Susan/DC, I just came back to the thread to add Becky Sharp!! SHE is my Scarlett O’Hara. I know she’s selfish and conniving and two-faced, and I just love the shit out of her. I was actually a little disappointed that Reese Witherspoon gave her a heart in the film version—as much as I love Reese, Becky would never have wept for her husband.

  26. Lauren says:

    I really think Beatrice from Much Ado is probably my favorite flawed heroine. I might be biased as she is my all time favorite fictional heroine closely tied/hard to place second with Elizabeth Bennett.

    Beatrice is not the tradition mousy maiden. She speaks her mind, is lively and merry (she was born to speak all mirth and no matter after all..), loyal and steadfast to her loved ones, fiercly witty and sarcastic as well.
      She is a strong heroine, her merry war of wits with Benedick is classic and damn funny, and yet you can’t help but see hints in there that she HAS that edge of sarcasm and wit because she had once given him her heart and he saw fit to give it back.
      She’s stubborn, but not in a too stupid to live way. And she has a fantastically comical sense of drama. Her sudden change from belittling Benedick to deciding to love him is great stuff, as is his moment of change regarding her.
      Though I like to believe it really wasn’t a whole sudden change of heart. It’s totally clear from the get go when put together, they seem to forget everyone else.
    /Much Ado Fangirling.

    If I ever haul myself to grad school, I have been toying with the idea to do a Masters on Love/Hate Relationships in Fiction and Their Popularity.

    …anyway.

  27. Ciara says:

    Lisabea – Meljean writes FABULOUS flawed heroines. I think Charlie is the best (Demon Night).

  28. amy lane says:

    OKay—everyone already beat me to my favorites—Emma Woodhouse, Elizabeth Bennet, Rachel Morgan, Eve Dallas—I LOVE THESE GUYS. 

    Scarlett O’Hara?  No.  I could never warm to her.  I keep trying—honestly and sincerely—but she doesn’t do it for me. 

    But one of my all time favorites is Tracy Lord from The Philadelphia Story, played by the flawed-character grande-dame herself, Katherine Hepburn.

  29. I’ll put up with a lot, but the one that really REALLY bugs me are those that are Too Stupid To Live.

    Guinevere from the Arthur legends always bugged me.

    Juliet from Romeo and Juliet makes me want to scream. Romeo, too for that matter. In fact, the whole damn play is annoying with the exception of the Mercutio and the Prince. The rest were too annoying for words. Ugh.

    There was a book I read…can’t remember who it was (Heather Lowell maybe? *shrug*) This heroine KNOWS she’s being stalked. KNOWS its a killer after her. Goes to her house, leaves the cops sitting out front.  Sees the back gate (that conveniently goes into the alley) is not only unlocked, but open, when she knows it damn well should be locked, and WITHOUT TELLING THE COPS, leaves the house and goes into the alley where…(say it with me)… the killer grabs her. (I mean, really. If I knew a killer was after me, I’d be like the Alcalde’s wife in Zorro the Gay Blade. 6 men surrounding me at all times so if I took one step in any direction I’d bump into one of them.) At that point I started rooting for the killer to put her out of my misery. I remember hoping it was First Book Syndrome.

    But the best-written truly flawed heroine has to be from Mystery/Fiction. Carrol O’Connell’s Kathy Mallory. She’s what Eve Dallas would have been without a soul. Really and truly one of the most complicated, flawed heroines ever.

  30. Danise says:

    Thumbs up not to just Tracy Lord, but several Hepburn characters.  She sure got the roles and treated them well.  Maureen O’Hara is also good for flawed heroines (OMG – The Quiet Man). 

    I grew up loving both the females in Jubilee Trail by Gwen Brister and Katerine from Seyton’s book of the same name.  Anyone else read these?

  31. Kate says:

    Ziggy, I have to absolutely agree about Rose Mortmain! I adored her hardness and practicality, even though it was so disastrous to Cassandra (who I also liked, for the record), and I also liked that even though Rose was an interesting piece of work she was real and came across as sympathetic to me. Even at her most selfish.

    And I’m in the pro-Scarlett camp. She’s pretty nasty but so perfect for that novel – perfect. Couldn’t have been anyone else or the novel wouldn’t have worked. Her fascination with the facade makes her character interesting (and I too am only talking about Margaret Mitchell’s Scarlett, not that pale imitation in the sequel.)

  32. Kate says:

    Why did that all come out underlined? I’m not trying to yell or anything, I swear!

    (soviet64 – interesting)

  33. Suze says:

    Juliet from Romeo and Juliet makes me want to scream. Romeo, too for that matter. In fact, the whole damn play is annoying with the exception of the Mercutio and the Prince. The rest were too annoying for words. Ugh.

    OMG YES!  I have always hated that play.  Mercutio was the only person even slightly interesting or sympathetic, and he gets killed off!  Yech.

    Also, I’ve never been able to get past the first three pages of Gone With the Wind.

    And I agree that Meljean’s Charlie is excellently flawed.  Ruined her beautiful voice, career, and life from alcoholism, but none of that overwhelms the story; it informs Charlie’s character, just like it’s supposed to.  Loved her.  Excellent work, Meljean!

  34. Anna Clare says:

    I’ll second Gwendolen Harleth. Somehow managed to be sympathetic despite being spoiled, vain and self-centred. And Becky Sharp – classic anti-heroine.

    The one I was thinking of (and not necessarily a romance heroine) was Anne Shirley. She didn’t have the obvious flaws, being a terminally sweet-natured optimist, but she was dizzy, overwrought and prone to screwing up.

  35. Vivian says:

    Been lurking here a while, and I have to chime in haha, this conversation is so interesting!

    Jennifer Armintrout: First I have to mention that I read the first book of your Blood Ties series and wow was that a major emotional ride.  And sexy, too.  Thank you for writing such a gripping book, I stayed up all night to read it 🙂  And I’m backing you up on the Bridget Jones comment. I caught the last half of it on TV one night and I think it was only Colin Firth that made me think “This movie is cute, I have to read the book now”.  But I couldn’t stand the book.  Bridget Jones descended into TSTL heroine category.  Then again, I’m not at that stage of my life yet…so maybe I can’t relate.

    Backing everyone else up on Meljean Brook’s novels, which I LOVE, though I have yet to read the most recent one out.  Demon Angel will always be one of my favorite paranormal romances, and Lilith was just an amazing heroine – even as Satan’s demon daughter and had those wings and whatnot, she was just so real to me, her struggles were fascinating and the way she overcame them…was just spectacular.  I’ll stop gushing now. 

    Also joining the Eve Dallas fanclub.  I started the series when it was over 20 books in last year and I’ve had to tell myself to pace myself so I wouldn’t finish them so fast!

    I’m reading The Painted Veil right now, which I guess technically isn’t a romance (though the movie was, and it also has the extra plus of having Edward Norton), but how about Kitty Fane for a flawed heroine?

  36. Trix says:

    Add me to the Eve Dallas, Harriet Vane and Ista (of Paladin of Souls) fan clubs. I can’t agree with Austen’s Emma – I find her too annoying to enjoy her comeuppance.

    As for Phèdre from the Kushiel books, I tend to agree her flaws aren’t terribly flawlike – a bit of arrogance, impulsiveness, and some natural “why me?” (not exactly conflicted, though) wibbles. But at least she’s not in the “sickeningly perfect” line of heroines (although I know she strikes some people that way).

  37. sandra says:

    I’ve always considered Scarlett O’Hara to be a classic psychopath, or sociopath as they say now:  Totally ruthless and self-centred, incapable of guilt or empathy, unable to love or to accept love from others; her ‘love’ for Ashley is sexual desire; sociopaths routinely mistake the one for the other, since they have no real notion of the meaning of the word.  She gets what she deserves.

  38. Megaera says:

    Paladin of Souls is definitely a romance, IMHO, and Ista is a perfectly flawed heroine (if there is such a thing).

    Does anyone else think of Jessica from Lord of Scoundrels as flawed?

    And it was awfully nice to read someone *else* fansqueeing about Much Ado for a change…

  39. Tracy Grant says:

    I love flawed heroines (for that matter, I love flawed characters in general, but I’ll particularly seek out a book if it has a flawed heroine, because I tend to get bored with heroines who are too sweet and nice (not sure what that says about me :-).  The term encompasses such a wide range of characters.  From someone like Barbara Childe in Heyer’s “An Infamous Army” who can be selfish and self-destructive, and changes quite a bit in the course of the book (though she never becomes “sweet”) to someone like Harriet Vane who has broken society’s rules and suffered rather appallingly for it and becomes brittle and prickly to protect herself to bright, somewhat self-absorbed women like Tracy Lord and Emma Woodhouse to someone like my own Mélanie Fraser who takes very morally ambiguous actions and betrays a number of people (including her husband) for (at least in her eyes) principled reasons.    Btw, it’s so fun hearing people talk about “Much Ado”—my favorite Shakespeare play, one of my favorite stories ever.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top