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

[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.