![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
litlover12) wrote2010-03-21 08:06 pm
Of heroes and romance
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.
no subject
*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.
no subject
no subject
no subject