Of heroes and romance

[litlover12]

(Cross-posted at Dickensblog)

Just a few thoughts inspired by my recent viewing of North and South:

It occurs to me that many of the most popular 19th-century romantic heroes are the haughty, brooding ones, and that a lot of these were created by women. Jane Austen's Mr. Darcy, Charlotte Brontë's Mr. Rochester, Emily Brontë's Heathcliff, Elizabeth Gaskell's John Thornton -- they all fit this pattern. (Say what you will about Heathcliff -- I hear a lot of people say nowadays that he shouldn't be considered a romantic hero at all -- but I still think he counts.) This is not to say that Austen and the other women never wrote about sensitive men, or even sensitive heroes, but generally their best known heroes seem to be the proud brooders. There are probably at least five Mr. Darcy fangirls for every Captain Wentworth fangirl.

On the other hand, when Dickens gives us a romantic hero -- say, Arthur Clennam, David Copperfield, or Nicholas Nickleby -- that hero tends to be outwardly gentler and more warm-hearted. A "sensitive male," if you will, though I don't really care for the term. I find it fascinating that these are the sort of romantic heroes that the century's greatest male novelist was creating, while the women were fashioning a very different sort of model.

And personally, I also find it fascinating that the vast majority of modern women prefer the haughty types, while I, a traditionalist in many ways, am so much more drawn to the Dickensian heroes. If one adhered to stereotypes, one might expect it to be the other way around.

What this all means . . . I'm not really sure! But it's interesting to think about. At least, I think it is.

Comments

[tempestsarekind.livejournal.com]

Mr. Knightley, Henry Tilney, and Edmund Bertram forever!

*g*

But you're right; taking an Austen class, for me, is an exercise in watching people swoon over Darcy, and then actively dislike most of the other heroes, which I find interesting--not just indifference, but actual distaste. There's something about their lack of...er, firmness that makes them not as "heroic." (Which is why I might put Wentworth in the same category as Darcy, even if he's not as well-known.)

I really liked watching North and South and Little Dorrit (haven't yet read the novel in either case), but I loved Arthur Clennam so much more than John Thornton. I don't think I go in for glowering.

And then, too, I think Darcy is really not as glowery as subsequent pop culture and received wisdom have made him out to be. He does try to make amends for his initial bad behavior, but Elizabeth rebuffs him.

Anyway, I have nothing substantive or useful to say (sorry!), but it is a really interesting difference.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

That's quite all right, it wasn't an especially substantive post. :D And I enjoy hearing various takes on the idea.

[tempestsarekind.livejournal.com]

But it makes me wonder why. And then I want someone to have done some sort of study about it. :D So I would like to be able to be analytical about it and all, but mostly all I have is "yeah, me neither."

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Oh, I see. I can understand that. My mind works that way pretty often (though not so much lately -- too much going on, and too sleepy much of the time!). There were some good comments about it at Dickensblog, if you go to the first link in this post, that might help inspire analytical thought! :-)

[valancy-s.livejournal.com]

Yay for Davy and Wentworth and Tilney and all the nice boys!

It's funny... I know a guy from graduate school who's handsome and seems arrogant and stands around parties looking bored when anyone speaks to him. Yet when I describe him to friends as "a lot like Mr. Darcy," they assume I'm paying a compliment! There's a serious disconnect in our perception of these "romantic" heroes and what we'd actually want someone to behave like in real life...

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of truth in that. I adore John Adams in the movie "1776." I love his spirit and stubbornness and bluntness. In real life, I'd probably be barking, "WILL YOU STOP YELLING ALL THE TIME!" :-)

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I haven't read any of these books, I am ashamed to say! I heard of all these women swooning over these men and I feel left out. But then I wonder if I would even like them? I don't always seem to like the sorts of guys other girls do.

Just to use an X Files example, all the women loved Mulder. I did come to love him too, but only like you love a little brother or a bad puppy - they're cute and they mean well, but they're a pain to live with!

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

What type do you tend to go for? Tell me and I'll recommend a miniseries, if you'd like. :-) You can get 'em from Netflix, or even watch many of them on YouTube!

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Hm, that's an interesting question. As far as looks or age, I really have no preference. It's all about personality and character qualities to me. I like men, not boys. Always have, even from the time I was young teenager! While girls my age were swooning over boys our age, I was busy having crushes on teachers old enough to be my father. Or older.

I like the sort of guy who does what is right, because it's right. Self sacrifice, something greater to live for than just the girl (think Aragorn in LotR), someone you can count on to keep their word, even when it costs them. Those types of qualities.

And the more I think about it, looks really don't matter. I'd take geeky, glasses-wearing, balding Mark Greene (http://altoladeira.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/mark-greene.jpg) over Doug Ross (http://dailyblabber.ivillage.com/entertainment/georgeclooneyER.jpg) ANY DAY!


OH, MARK, HOW I MISS YOU!
/ER lament

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

*Takes out literary adaptation prescription pad* ;-)

I think "Little Dorrit" would be a good miniseries for you. It sounds to me as if you would like and appreciate Arthur. The ending's a little confusing -- the adapter took a rather complicated situation and made it even more complicated! -- but I wrote out an explanation when it aired that I can send you, if you should need it.

"Our Mutual Friend" might also be one you'd like, but I can't exactly recommend the miniseries firsthand -- I haven't yet seen it, though I hope to soon. But having read the book, I think you might like John.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

*Takes out literary adaptation prescription pad*

Hee!

I've heard people raving about 'Little Dorrit'. Have not heard of the other one. Thanks, I'll check them out.

Someday I hope to find out for myself what this Mr. Darcy business is all about. I swear you can practically see the glassy-eyed, swoony looks women get at the mention of his name, even through the computer screen and without them saying a word!

But I'm afraid that the expectation has been so built up in my mind after all I've heard, that if I do watch it, I'd be disappointed. I don't think anything or anyone can live up to that much hype!

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

With Mr. Darcy, I think it's a combination of (1) diamond in the rough, as proudmaxfan1418 says below, and (2) the fact that he grows and develops SO MUCH over the course of the story. Without giving too much away, he goes from looking down his nose at someone, to going way out of his way to help her. To the point where he seriously, SERIOUSLY inconveniences himself. It's easy to see the attraction there. I think many a girl loves the thought of having the power to change a man that much. Even I am not wholly immune to it. :-)

On the whole, though, my favorites are the guys who don't have that haughtiness problem to overcome.

But you should see P&P sometime if you get the chance -- the BBC version in particular is so good, I think everyone should see it at least once! The entire thing is so very well cast and so brilliantly done that I think you could enjoy it, even if Darcy did fall short of expectations.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I definitely need to. I feel so deprived!

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

Second Little Dorrit and Our Mutual Friend recs - and have seen both. I think Little Dorrit is better adapted (though a lot of people think it's confusing), but I felt Our Mutual Friend starts weakly, but improves incredibly. There are two radically different love stories in it, though, so no telling which one you'll like.

[proudmaxfan1418.livejournal.com]

I think the ladies were more drawn to the "diamond in the rough." The hard exterior with the soft inside. The scowling face with the heart of gold on the inside.
I wonder-could the ladies have been trying a more complex character, whereas Dickens' were more straightforward? It's been forever since I've read a Dickens novel. I don't remember anymore! Now I want to reread one!
I personally agree with the softer, gentler type of man. Darcy and Mr. Rochester are alright, but Tilney and Wentworth are my favorites (though I do have a soft spot for Thornton, who was a bit more genteel in the book).
Excellent food for thought!

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

Well, as: a) a guy; b) someone who thinks Jane Bennet and Mr. Bingley are a much more fun couple than Lizzy and Darcy (er, well, okay, not really, but I really, really love Jane); c) someone who has read almost all the books mentioned (save Wuthering Heights); d) one whose favorite Austen novel and hero are Emma and Mr. Knightley (who is much more sensative, though certainly can have moments of being commanding); e) one who thinks Arthur/Amy is made of utter awesomeness; I think I have to completely agree with you. I love stories of a hero who is quiet but not passive, strong but not arrogant, sensitive but not wimpy, kind and not manipulative (Rochester, I'm looking at you, you jerk), and deeply in love with the heroine. Yup.

Not to mention I have a serious problem with P&P being used as the "typical" and "best" Austen novel over, and over, and over, and over again. Seriously, people? There are FIVE other books. Not that hard to read. Plus, P&P isn't nearly as sophisticated as any of the last three books, even if it's the easiest to warp into our modern "romance" catagory.

[tempestsarekind.livejournal.com]

Not to mention I have a serious problem with P&P being used as the "typical" and "best" Austen novel over, and over, and over, and over again.

Seriously! I mean, I love P&P, but the insistence on it totally skews the way people look at Austen--like the assumption that all of Austen's heroines are like Elizabeth Bennet. So you get all this criticism about how, say, Fanny Price is an aberration from Austen's "usual" style, when she actually has a fair amount in common with heroines like Anne Elliot and Elinor Dashwood.

Also, Emma/Mr. Knightley forever. :) The short dialogue between them at the Randalls Christmas party ("Your father will not be easy; why do not you go?") is one of my favorite things ever.

[rosa-cotton.livejournal.com]

What a fascinating post, litlover. I agree with you it seems the majority of women prefer the haughty literature heroes. I've lost count the number of times I've politely listened to gushings about Mr. Darcy and/or John Thornton, who personally rub me the way. Haughtiness is not my cup of tea, and thus something must be wrong with me, oh heavens.

I am very much in the camp of the gentler, sensitive, kind gentleman: Arthur Clennam, Osbourne and Roger Hamley, Charles Bingley, Edmund Bertram, Henry Tilney, Colonel Brandon, and Raoul de Chagny.

...I also heart Sydney Carson though he doesn't fit either category.

P.S. Thank you for mentioning my little story on Dickensblog. I am honored. :)

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Over at Dickensblog, I decided that Sydney is a "sensitive brooder." :-)

Glad you mentioned Raoul -- I'm fond of him too!

[rosa-cotton.livejournal.com]

So thrilled to meet another Raoul fan! He is very underrated in my opinion.

[rosa-cotton.livejournal.com]

P.S.S. That squee-worthy post you did about Cinderella's shoes in Little Dorrit was indeed the main inspiration for my story. :D

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Cool! :-) I'm so happy to have played a small part in it!

[digne.livejournal.com]

Yes, this is an old post I know but I had to comment. For one thing I'm in a massive Little Dorrit mood right now and need to feed it ;) .

I can't remember if you read Georgette Heyer novels or not, but Heyer used to categorize her heroes and heroines.

Mark I heroes: The brooding dark heroes. They are often dangerous and dissolute with scandalous reputations, often with a foul temper.

Mark II heroes: Genial, even-tempered and well-liked with a respect for conventions.

Heyer never stuck strictly to this formula she often mixed the two. But it does seem to be true that I can't think of many Mark I heroes in Dickens except maybe Sydney in ToTC ??? Austen and Gaskell wrote both types. Even Charlotte Brontë's hero in The Professor seems to be a Mark II -- so she didn't just stick with the Edward Rochester Mark I. Hmmmm ...

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

I'm in something of a "Little Dorrit" mood myself, partly because I just saw Matthew in "Three Musketeers," but mostly because my cousin and I are getting together next Saturday for an LD viewing. I can't wait!! :-)

I've read a fair amount of Heyer, so I can definitely see that in her work.