MelJean’s musings on homosocial and homosexual under-and-overtones (heh heh) in romance made me ponder the friendships between men, which usually center around common painful childhoods (see: Putney), family connections (see: Quinn) and opportunity for somewhat goofy nicknames for circle of friends (see: Putney, Laurens), and common social habits, i.e. clubs, hunting groups, hooker-hunting groups, gambling, and/or bonding while suffering through endless balls, dances, and social events.
What about friendships among women? I know there are more than a few series wherein older matrons bond together and interfere – sorry, lovingly involve themselves – in young hero and heroine von romanticshire’s lives. But it seems to me that friendships among men, which according to some feminist theorists serve to reinforce heterosexuality and patriarchy, are much more common than true, multi-novel lasting friendships among women. There are a few exceptions that moved beyond “elder character from previous novel giving sage advice to young virgin heroine,” such as The Wallflowers in Kleypas’ Secrets of a Summer Night, the friendships that follow through Julia Quinn’s two early works, Splendid and Dancing at Midnight though there is some of that in each novel. Perhaps there’s an imaginary line that heroines cross when they have sex and settle down into married bliss, because I have much clearer recollections of heroines from previous novels appearing decades older and somehow unable to connect with the younger, virginal crowd anymore, than I do of heroines retaining their personalities and remaining merry friends with heroines of other books in a related series.
What does that mean, from a critical perspective? Is the underlying emphasis of romance novels the reaffirmation of the heterosexual patriarchy, and thus the friendships and homosocial collectives of men are of more importance than the friendships of women, which do little to support that patriarchy, and, in fact, undermine it?
However, as has been established, my memory for these things is quite poo. Do y’all challenge my recollection of female friendships? Shall I stop flexing these flabby fem-crit brain muscles?
For the most part, I tend to agree with your analysis of female friendships in romance. However, I can think of a “triology” that Susan Enoch wrote (“The Rake”, “London’s Perfect Scoundrel” and “England’s Perfect Hero”) which revolves around not only the friendship of three women, but also the “lessons” they decide to teach the men of the ton. They’re overall pretty silly books, but they did impress me with the fact that even as they marry off one by one, they do remain good friends and important figures in each other’s stories.
See, that’s what I mean – it’s a rare thing so when I see it, I remember it.
Also, for clarity, when I wrote this, I was thinking primarily of historicals – there are a glut of contemporaries that focus on female groups of friends as major and minor players in a story(Crusie comes to mind) and one of the things I enjoy about reading them is the refreshing feeling of reading about women friendships. I almost expect it of contemporaries, but not historicals.
Perhaps that is an unstated element of the “Marriage Mart” competition.
If I remember correctly, Jane Feather wrote a series of books that featured sisters getting married off one by one. I didn’t read them, though, because they all flunked my 15-page test.
But you’re right, Sarah: groups of male friends becoming the basis of a romance series is much more common than a group of females. I can think of two big reasons for this:
– As many people have noted, a lot of readers pick up a romance novel for a hero. If one hot hero = good, then 5 different hot heroes with different hair/eye color combinations and emotional baggage = instant bestselling series.
– Trying to NOT get married (often the goal of all-male groups) is so much cooler than trying to get married (often the goal of all-female groups). The latter probably strikes some as too mercenary, too cold-blooded; oh look, they’re deliberately trying to TRAP some poor unsuspecting guy, etc.
You are so right Candy – and don’t forget the angelic and exotic names for said heroes. If I encounter one more hero in a historical named “Lucien,” I’m going to holler so loud you’ll hear me from the west coast. I GET it: Lucien/Lucifer. Now STOP.
I also agree that it would be easier to take the easy way out and focus on a bunch of hot angel-themed men than to focus on women who are in fact trying to get married. But aside from the competition each female poses for the others, you’d think the experience of having to be on display and subject to the expectations of society would at least cause some common ground to be found – perhaps only among the intelligent ones, but hell, they’re the only ones I want to read about anyway!
And the Feather sisters were part of the “Bride” series, right? I think I read one of them – the sisterlyness was a big “Meh.” Too much time spent drawing them into individual characters that I had a hard time believing that they were sisters. I mean, my sister and I are different people and six years apart, but you stand us next to each other and get us talking, and there’s no doubt we’re related. I never got that impression from the Feather sisters. They were more like stepsiblings who came to be family much later in life.
(Note: why would I wanna work when you’re talking about one of my favorite topics in Romance?)
There is, I think, a logical and practical reason (from a writer standpoint) why the heroines in Romance rarely if ever have any kind of supportive network. Notice as well that they tend to have dead or way-removed-from-her-life parents. Romance heroines are usually All Alone in the Big Bad World. One reason is because if she had (realistic) people looking out for her, then the rakish rogue rakehell of a hero with a rapacious reputation would never get a crack at her. Seriously, it’s hard enough to get those two together without a realistically concerned friend sticking her nose in – or heaven help us, a nosy mama or protective papa.
But psychologically, it works better to have her all alone, standing exposed to the elements of his wolfish gaze. I’m bad at explaining this side of things, but I just mean – the story has way more impact and carries more import, if it’s Heroine Grows Up (sexually, emotionally, romantically, etc) Facing That Totally Intense Guy All By Her Purty Lil Self.
I haven’t read it, but doesn’t Eloisa James’s Much Ado About You kick off a series about four sisters? Not the same as friendships though.
Ooooh, very good point, Beth. The counterpoint to this is: it’s also much more psychologically powerful to have the hero be this complete basketcase about women. I mean, so many romance novel heroes are just really, really hot misogynists with their “ALL WOMEN ARE LYING SLUTS AND I DON’T SEE HOW YOU’RE DIFFERENT, WENCHY” attitudes, but by the redeeming power of the heroine’s Lurveâ„¢ he sees the light and learns to love and trust women again instead of only relying on his friends from Eton/Oxford/Cambridge/the army to watch out for his back.
God, Meljean is so right: romance novel heroes? Gay gay GAY.
Judith McNaught would have heroines become friends with each other in some of her books that seemed to last from tie-in to tie-in. The only thing I didn’t really care for in that set-up was the fact that they were interconnected because the husbands were either brothers or friends first. That seemed to put the female friendships as secondary.
I’d like to see a romance where it’s two close friends who have stuck together for years, before the hero shows up to whisk one off to earthly paradise. Realistically, there would be competition between hero and friend, some resentment on the friend’s side and pressure and stress for the heroine. That makes for a great emotional dynamic – some good stuff for a writer to tackle without having to bother with a contrived conflict.
White raven: I think we’d never see that in Romance because- well, frankly, it’s not a good romantic conflict. Romantic conflict is when the H/H have a issues between them – not when the heroine and her best friend have issues. It’d be great to have a situation like that to add an extra layer to a character’s development, but it would be a very tough balance for any writer to maintain, I think.
But hey, I’m just a-thinkin’ out loud and stuff. I have a personal preference for very tight romantic conflict and just HATE when a Romance becomes more about the external conflicts. Hate when it veers off into Let’s Solve The Mystery or Let’s Turn Into Chick Lit Before Your Very Eyes.
And Candy, if you ever read that “Dangerous Men, Adventurous Women” book, there’s discussion all over in there about archetypes and the psychology of it all. Okay, not “all over” because it’s in maybe 3 or 4 of the essays. But it’s interesting, anyway.
Must. Stop. Bitching. Must start working. Ah!
You are right, Jorie, there are close female friends in Eloisa James’ novels, from “Duchess in Love” to “Much Ado About You.” Gina, Esme, Helene and whatshernametheotherone are all pretty tight in the better-written of the series, while they only make appearances as plot devices in the ones that bothered me. But the friendship between them is enjoyable – and is one of the reasons I really enjoyed “Duchess in Love.”
And Candy, don’t forget the “smug married” element on the part of the HEROES from past novels who are married and settled into wedded, domestic, child-rearing bliss and the attitude they carry towards their still-unmarried brethren. There’s often a “just you wait” gloating which (appropriately) bugs the hell out of the unmarried hero, and then he crosses to the wedded side and realizes his friends were right. One more example of how the acquisition of a female reinforces the masculinity of the hero, and underscores the need for the rest of the homosocial circle of friends to acquire their own so as to exist on the same playing field as their married friends.
And my captcha told me to “stop.” HA!
With British-setting [since it’s only thing I can feel confident to waffle about] historicals, I don’t expect heroines to have personal friends for practical reasons. Hm, I just realised that what I want to say would be a tad too long for this comment section.
In short: location, travel restrictions [which I can certainly relate to], social etiquette [which lasts, somewhat, to this day], class division [even the upper class among themselves, there are (idiotic) rules], social politics and friendships through other means [e.g. letters]. I hope you’re psychic enough to figure all that out. 😀
While Beth’s reasons make sense, I don’t get nor like the ‘dead parents’ thing.
Beth: Seen that way, I’d have to agree on all fronts. Too many side paths that end up being pitfalls. Will have rethink my preference on that one. Thanks! 🙂
The ‘dead parents’ thing is annoying, I agree. I also was of the impression that while parents of that time period didn’t get all into their babies given the high infant mortality rate, they did pay attention when baby girl grew up and was on the marriage mart, since her securing of a good match was as important for her family as it was for her. But I could be wrong.
I keep thinking of other novels written in that same Regency time period, especially Austen, where there were a host of heroines with close female friends. Often the friends drove the heroine nuts, and the other women in their circle were caricatures of social harpies, but due to the relative dearth of females to choose from for friendship purposes, they suffered through. I mean, they did have women to talk to, if Austen’s oeuvre is a place from which one might judge (sometimes I think she is, sometimes I think I rely too much on her for insights into ‘historical accuracy.’)
Also, as I just wrote to Candy, I have to say I’m also abnormally proud of myself for breaking out all that feminist crit I had to learn six years ago. If that prof could see me now. She did NOT like that I kept submitting papers that applied Feminist crit (and oh the joy I get out of saying “Feminist crit,” because it sounds like another feminist word!!) to romance novels and short stories.
I even did a great piece (I thought, anyway) on feminine/female voice in fiction that looked at a Jude Deveraux short story where the hero’s portion was 3rd person, but every other chapter was told from the heroine’s perspective in 1st person, AND she was a mystery writer. I LOVED that she had her own voice. It might have been the first time I’d seen 1st person used in a romance novel, especially interspersed with 3rd person omnicient for the hero’s portion. Prof in question threw the paper back at me and told me I had to choose another literary work, something “good.” One more reason why I wish I’d studied literature somewhere else.
Great, thought-provoking post. In reading the comments, I realized a similarity between romance heroines with missing or dead parents and Disney movies, where at least one parent is usually dead. Sometimes both. I wonder if it is because children/women are taken care of unless forced into it by extreme circumstances? Especially in historicals, a strong father would definitely interfere with all those passionate interludes in the library. And I also realize as I am typing that in my first book, my heroine’s parents are both dead. And one of them was a scoundrel.
Also, I remember another student in my Psychoanalytic Approaches to Literature class wanting to do her paper on “Gone With The Wind.” The teacher sniffed, and said it should be on _literature_. So I did mine on “Wuthering Heights.” Tell me, which one is more over the top??
Hmmm…as a rule I think you’re right, though I have read some with female friends, including the ones you mention. I seem to remember good female friends in Johanna Lindsey’s Man of My Dreams (the cover of which was posted once here, too. *g*). And in Unlaced/Unveiled by Kristina Cook, the two books are connected by the female friendship more than male connections, I think.
But I don’t want to make my head hurt by really thinking about this today. Hmmm..
One thing that bugs me about the snobbish attitude toward romance and pop culture in general by the academic elite is the idea that it’s somehow not worthy of study. Horsecrap. The average plebian American, who, as the whole, define the culture, watch more house of “The Amazing Race” and read romantic fiction than they read “Wuthering Heights” and watch “Masterpiece Theatre.” So what’s a better way to take the pulse of American cultural trends, that which people do know or that which people pretend they know?
Also, which is more likely to inculcate established social patterns of behavior? The fact that the readership of romance makes it a powerful entity is part of what fascinates me with this conversation. Romance is certainly a positive in that is develops and explores female sexuality and healthy relationships, but at the same time, is it reinforcing patriarchal standards? Perish the thought!
Sorry, that’s “hours of ‘The Amazing Race.’”
Sheesh.
See, now all I can think of is the two women in “Absolutely Fabulous” – Now there is a dynamic duo…
But that wasn’t a romance novel, was it?
OK – What about ‘A Midsummer’s Night Dream’, with Helen and Hermia – now there’s a lovely romance!
Another writer who builds female friendships in her novels is Amanda Quick, aka Jayne Anne Krentz. But you’re right, it’s noteworthy in its rarity. I agree with Beth that isolating the heroine is a plot device the writer uses to help move the action along. If the crux of a romance is the H&H dealing with either internal, external, or dual conflicts, then you can’t have her friends and family always sheltering her, especially in a historical where a girl’s freedom was more restricted anyway. Hard for her to run off and become a pirate or hide out with smugglers if her parents are hovering over her.
That is totally true in romance adventures. In order for wild romantic escapades to happen, one can’t have the chaperoning maid tailing after the heroine, screaming and holding on to her frilly hat!
Okay, seriously – I’m gonna get fired if I don’t stop, but I just have to add to my whole point about the heroine being alone in the world – it ups the stakes and makes everything a bit more dangerous, emotionally speaking. And that all just leads me to thoughts about how Romance maybe isn’t really about reinforcing/repudiating stereotypes and patriarchy and gender roles and blahblah – but it’s more (to me) about integrating the innocent and not-so-innocent. The sweet young thing becomes one with the dark-n-dangerous hottie, and they balance each other out.
Right, okay. Shutting up now, but it’s you bitches’s’s fault for bringing it all up.
Well, there’s Juliet and her Nurse – although the story ended badly, and it wouldn’t be published as a romance today because of that. (and the fact that Romeo and Juliet were 14 & 15 when they married in secret…)
Oldoldold but I remember “Moonstruck Madness” by Laurie McBain (like 1978 old) was about a small family, two sisters and maybe a brother, who were dedicated to one another, and it was their dedication to one another (the two sisters especially) that landed the heroine in (calm down, Bitches) the hero-Lucien (ahem, the Devil Duke) arms. ‘Sides that, though, I draw a blank too.
And I’m not entirely in agreement that the male-friends v. female-friends thing is entirely tied to marketability of 5 angelic brothers/friends. I think there’s probably a big chunk of writer psyche in there, particularly the chunk revolving around writers’ experiences with friends. MOST women I know (Beth would be excluded) say that their best friends are men, that they hate women, etc., and if you consider that, then you’ll see that perhaps authors don’t know what lasting, intimate, loving friendships between women really are, let alone know how to write them.
My rambling .02
Interesting point, arp, and you may be on to something, though I find it hard to imagine that so many female authors have such difficulty connecting with other women. Most of the women I know have very close girlfriends; perhaps this is an instance of the availability heuristic on our parts?
Long, pointless, personal digression, so skip this bit if you want: The “women not liking other women” phenomenon is something I never really encountered until I came to America because schools are generally segregated by sex in Malaysia, which means I’ve always had extremely close relationships with women—I mean, it’s not like I had a choice. If I wanted friends, females were it. Some of my American best friends, though, are women who don’t “get” other women, and I think they base this attitude on what they experienced in school, too. Some of the stories they told me about how cruelly the popular girls in high school treated them made my jaw drop, and the amazing thing is, their experiences seem to have been the norm for American high schools. I’ve always wondered if it was a function of the Malaysian school syste (public school students had to wear uniforms based on national standards, single-sex schools more common than co-ed) or if it’s a cultural thing in general or a combination.
I went to a single gender college, and it was one of the defining decisions that I unwittingly made that allowed me to be who I am. I do have close women friends, and most of them came from college.
There is definitely a competitive element to the way women are raised in the US. We were not necessarily taught to be supportively competitive, but were taught to tear each other down. What we are competing for, I am not sure.
Perhaps this is a throwback to Regency era, where women were in competition with each other for husbands.
You both may be right about school systems shaping our capacity for intimacy. I was a U.S. public schooly who wasn’t really competition, fashion boys or otherwise (maybe I was lucky to be a fat kid?). I had female friends, but they were more like acquaintances than friends except for one or two, and when I had those two, I felt very deeply for them but always had the impression that if it came to a choice between me and a guy, the guy would win.
So, in later years, when men started growing up and not being the way they are around other men, I bonded more thoroughly with them, because not only are they more kind, but they don’t make me feel that “I’d dump you for a hot woman/man in a heartbeat” sense.
Or it could be that I’ve become the dumper self-defensively, but that’s a whole lot of psyche that I have my own blog on which to natter. 🙂
Thanks for thoughtful discussion!
Maybe the lack of close friends thingy is a result of a very mobile society? I moved schools every couple of years growing up so I never did develop long-term relationships with girls or boys. I always envied those that had best friends from grade school.
BTW – love you Smart Bitches! 😉