.jpg)
I'm talking about prickly heroes. Now, I'm a huge fan (along with a majority of the female population) of Kate Johnson's hero, Harker, from The Untied Kingdom. He is probably best described as 'a little prickly'. Jack, my male lead in Star Struck, is another one.
I got to thinking about this, because in my Work In Progress (provisionally entitled, at the moment, 'Living in the Past'), my hero, Duncan, a Scots archaeologist (he's from Dundee, he doesn't deal solely with fossilised kilts, if you see what I mean), is prickly. In fact, at the beginning, he is downright rude, and it got me thinking...
At what point do our characters cross the line? I am well known for my dislike of the Alpha Hero (oy, mate, nobody tells me what's best for me...), but at what point does the person trying to get you out of the way of danger become a bossy, overbearing idiot? Likewise, at what point does the prickly, touchy hero (Duncan is under permanent suspicion by the police for something he may (or may not, I'm not giving away my plot here) have done. It makes him a little bit...tetchy, shall we say), become obviously rude and unpleasant? At what point does a character lose our sympathy and gain a smack around the face (and/or laxatives in the coffee, if one is a non-directly confrontational person)?
At first I thought it might be down to how the heroine handles him. If she seems to sweep away his remarks and dismiss his bossiness, can we overlook it and see if for what (presumably) the author intended? But then I thought about all those books I've read where I have wanted to seize the heroine by both shoulders and shake her until she wees herself, whilst shouting 'run! Run far, run fast, this man wants you compliant as soon as possible!' while she is simpering at the hero and going along with his, usually quite frankly scary, suggestions.
So, come on everyone, tell me. Is it your own prejudices and experience that makes a hero cross the line? Or is it the writing? When does that attractively irritable hero become an abusive, angry man? When does the protectively commanding behaviour become bossy oppression?
And you'd better let me know fast, before Duncan degenerates into Victor Meldrew...
4 comments:
Victor Meldrew = definitely not sexy! You asked a tricky question and as a reader I'd say I know it when I read it but couldn't pin it down.
It's the Mr Rochester syndrome, isn't it? Very tricky to deal with, but I've always enjoyed your male main characters - and I am by no means a romance reader!
I think there has to be some redeeming quality amongst the irritating ones which is obvious from the outset (and nothing too cheesy like being kind to furry animals and small children - or is it the other way about...?) A quick wit and a good turn of phrase gets my attention, for example, and shows he may be grumpy but redeemable. And unjustified gittishness mustn't be his default setting - there should be the suggestion from the start that, given the right circumstances, he can and will adapt.
I think it depends on the character. Like Margaret said - they must have some redeeming qualities. They can SAY really horrible things and get away with it if they DO nice things (whilst grumbling, if necessary). If they are 100% grumpy bugger, then I'd probably get annoyed and stop reading.
Harker. *Swoon*. Sorry, yes, very tricky one - I was hoping to read the answer here! I guess it's in the writing - so you've no worries on that one!
Post a Comment