S
sherri2
Guest
I just watched half of the 2006 movie version of this and it got me thinking. I read the book as a teenager like so many other women and it's such a classic. Beautifully written, really powerful and can speak to you over 100 years later just as clearly.
I think a lot of women can relate to the character because she's intelligent, strong willed and deep (as well as highly principled) and a survivor. She falls in love with a passionate, intense, complicated man (which of course also appeals) and they end up living happily ever after. Any woman with a brain would enjoy that when compared to your typical fluffy, irritating, cheap romance novel.
BUT. The sterotypes always bothered me and just to make myself feel better, I wanted to rehash them somewhere. Because it really does bother me.
So here we go. It's still so typical -
a) he loves her for her mind. (and personality)
b) she's poor, he's rich, but that doesn't bother him a bit and he loves her anyway (although later she becomes rich through a convienent relative dying) so it's ok.
c) a churchman falls in love with her but he's arrogant, cold and hypocrital. Because hey, you can't trust the church.
d) she can change him. he's had his mistresses, but wants to be 'good' now, and oh look, she's so good that her character alone is enough to reform him. so he's bad. but she's got enough soul for his redemption.
ONE OF THE STUPIDIST, HORRIBLE LIES that has been the downfall of so many nice women over the centuries. He'll change for me. Really. Forever. I'm all he needs to do that.
And yet.....
Charlotte Bronte was an intelligent woman, proven time over in that book, so what does she do?
The man is bad, but to make sure he doesn't leave the heroine (because hey, she is plain afterall - that's part of his charm, he loves her anyway) and he's had his mistresses and women fawning all over him all his life, including the lovely Blanche from the neighbouring estate - belle of the county.
So to make sure he doesn't leave her, the author cripples and blinds him in an accident where he loses his lovely estate in a terrible fire (and probably most of his money considering where he ends up.) So yay, enter the heroine now with the power. She's rich, and can look after him because she truly loves him. He's lost an arm (had it crushed) and is blind.
No beautiful woman who could do better would want him now.
So he's effectivly been emasculated/disempowered so that he's no longer a threat to her.
They can live happily ever after because he really doesn't have any choice.
- It's such a terrible lie.
Go after someone unsuitable because they're a) out of reach, b) have everything you don't - BUT, they'll love you anyway for your goodness alone. Then control them so they can't hurt you.
Bring them down and alleviate the threat.
It's downright evil.
It's just the flipside of the armcandy/bimbo with the boob job sterotype that women detest in men. Don't get a real woman, get a trophy. She's out of your league but if you've got the dough...- and you can always trade her in later as long as you stay rich.
vs - you can get the fun, bad boy that all the girls want. And you can do it with your 'purity' because he lost his. It's a trade off. Then destroy him afterwards so he won't stray.
I really hate it.
Romance novels are so often just female porn. Emotionally. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
'A Walk To Remeber' was just the christian version. The girl was repressed, controlling, self-righteous and mealy mouthed and the 'hot' guy just couldn't resist those high morals. It's retarded.
(she was also supposed to be plain, but I don't think they could make that believable enough so they used a beautiful actress.)
And we're supposed to be setting the example. (Ever seen the romance novel section of your local, christian bookshop? It now takes up a whole aisle of ours. It used to be just one shelf.)
I think a lot of women can relate to the character because she's intelligent, strong willed and deep (as well as highly principled) and a survivor. She falls in love with a passionate, intense, complicated man (which of course also appeals) and they end up living happily ever after. Any woman with a brain would enjoy that when compared to your typical fluffy, irritating, cheap romance novel.
BUT. The sterotypes always bothered me and just to make myself feel better, I wanted to rehash them somewhere. Because it really does bother me.
So here we go. It's still so typical -
a) he loves her for her mind. (and personality)
b) she's poor, he's rich, but that doesn't bother him a bit and he loves her anyway (although later she becomes rich through a convienent relative dying) so it's ok.
c) a churchman falls in love with her but he's arrogant, cold and hypocrital. Because hey, you can't trust the church.
d) she can change him. he's had his mistresses, but wants to be 'good' now, and oh look, she's so good that her character alone is enough to reform him. so he's bad. but she's got enough soul for his redemption.
ONE OF THE STUPIDIST, HORRIBLE LIES that has been the downfall of so many nice women over the centuries. He'll change for me. Really. Forever. I'm all he needs to do that.
And yet.....
Charlotte Bronte was an intelligent woman, proven time over in that book, so what does she do?
The man is bad, but to make sure he doesn't leave the heroine (because hey, she is plain afterall - that's part of his charm, he loves her anyway) and he's had his mistresses and women fawning all over him all his life, including the lovely Blanche from the neighbouring estate - belle of the county.
So to make sure he doesn't leave her, the author cripples and blinds him in an accident where he loses his lovely estate in a terrible fire (and probably most of his money considering where he ends up.) So yay, enter the heroine now with the power. She's rich, and can look after him because she truly loves him. He's lost an arm (had it crushed) and is blind.
No beautiful woman who could do better would want him now.
So he's effectivly been emasculated/disempowered so that he's no longer a threat to her.
They can live happily ever after because he really doesn't have any choice.
- It's such a terrible lie.
Go after someone unsuitable because they're a) out of reach, b) have everything you don't - BUT, they'll love you anyway for your goodness alone. Then control them so they can't hurt you.
Bring them down and alleviate the threat.
It's downright evil.
It's just the flipside of the armcandy/bimbo with the boob job sterotype that women detest in men. Don't get a real woman, get a trophy. She's out of your league but if you've got the dough...- and you can always trade her in later as long as you stay rich.
vs - you can get the fun, bad boy that all the girls want. And you can do it with your 'purity' because he lost his. It's a trade off. Then destroy him afterwards so he won't stray.
I really hate it.
Romance novels are so often just female porn. Emotionally. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
'A Walk To Remeber' was just the christian version. The girl was repressed, controlling, self-righteous and mealy mouthed and the 'hot' guy just couldn't resist those high morals. It's retarded.
(she was also supposed to be plain, but I don't think they could make that believable enough so they used a beautiful actress.)
And we're supposed to be setting the example. (Ever seen the romance novel section of your local, christian bookshop? It now takes up a whole aisle of ours. It used to be just one shelf.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll check them out.