I’m working on the new book-in-progress, “Everything I Know About Love, I Learned from Romance Novels,” and I wanted to humbly ask for your help and your perspective. I’m working on a chapter about the traits most commonly found in romance heroes and heroines (I’m also attempting to use the word “heroes” to describe both, but I think I may have to undo those in editing because hero seems to communicate to most people a masculine, not feminine, role).
What would you say the most common and essential traits are among romance heroes and heroines? Faithfulness? Honor? Strength? Creativity? Instant orgasms? What makes up the ideal romance hero or heroine – by the end of the book, anyway?
This is a very general question, but I’m also looking for specifics: based on the traits you value, which characters are your enduring favorites, and why? Is there a character or plot that was or is totally your “type?”
I am hoping to incorporate romance reader comments in the book, so if you would like to be included in the “quotable” area, please let me know that (a) I may quote you and (b) what name I should use. And if you forget, don’t worry. I can contact you later if I would like to include your perspective. If you want to leave a comment but don’t want to be included in the book, just say so in the comment. Totally cool.
This probably won’t be the only time I ask for your expert opinions, as I want this book to be as representative of the possible lessons found in the romance genre from both the writer and reader perspective, but in advance, thank you thank you thank you for your help.
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 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.
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]
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…