I’m all for Independence but when someone doesn’t want a relationship because of their independence they are just plain self-centered. To me entering a relationship does not signify the end of independence, if it does then they weren’t independent to begin with. To me part of the romance is convincing them that a relationship is not the end of independence but the beginning to a partnership. These independent heroine don’t bother me, if they come into their “senses”, since i can understand their unwillingness to commit to a relationship.

I hope everyone understand what i’m trying to say.
I

I would be especially interested in your reactions to Glass's book, Janine, because I think it does a good job of dealing with the heroine's past traumas, which are quite extensive. It's an interesting mix of traditional and non-traditional elements, IMO.

Thanks; I’ll put it on my list of books to try.

I agree. Romance novels are about love stories, people falling in love and deciding to share a life. Truly independent people, as idealized in this discussion, do not share. The heroines used as examples become frustrating not because they are truly subversive, but rather because this kind of conflict cannot be sustained within the genre. The genre is about fantasy, fairytale, and building relationships.

Byatt’s Possession is a romance, where we learn what independence really is, better yet, what it IS NOT.

My take is that relationships are never really 50/50, and independence, dependence, and/or freedom mean different things to people. But romances are about relationships. We can put all kinds of window dressings around the romance, over it, etc. etc. but in the end, it’s about creating a society, where two people want to make something new together.

…such that heroines who previous to meeting the hero are very career focused but after falling in love with Mr. Right don't think twice about abandoning those ambitions for SAHM status. It's that knee-jerk thing that signals faux independence for me, not the choice itself.

I think part of that is, at least for many of us who’ve been confronted with that choice, is that we instinctively know that it isn’t something you just up and do one day because you got a wild hair. And when heroines do it, it rings false because we expect to see some hint of a discussion, an agonization,some *conflict* that acknowledges the gravity of the decision, because it’s a big one to make.

Unfortunately, in the same way that working for some real life women isn't a matter of choice, staying at home with kids isn't a matter of choice for others. Which means that, given your definition of independence, neither the working woman nor the SAHM are independent if their choice isn't made freely.

I think there are going to be shades of gray on this one. The majority of us are not completely free to make the decisions we want all the time. We can, however, make the best decisions we can live with, taking into account our circumstances. A woman who has to work when she really wants to stay at home with the kids can still be considered independent because she’s taken an active part in deciding her own fate, even if it’s not her ideal.

As for Tessa, I understood where she was coming from, and since she didn’t know she was a character in a romance novel and therefore would be with Gabe by the end of the book, I bought into her reluctance. Especially because I read it as her attempt to keep herself from giving up her independence like she had done with Denny, and not that she thought Gabe would take control of his own volition.

A relationship, a healthy one to my mind, involves the choice of blending, of making a life with another person–and that involves compromises on both sides. Letting someone take care of you, and allowing yourself to take care of your partner doesn’t negate independence–or the capabilities you had when you entered the relationship.

When I was a single parent I was capable of making household repairs–not much choice anyway. The guy I fell for lived on his own and was capable of cooking decent meals. When we blended our lives, I happily turned over household repairs–as a carpenter he was a lot more capable in that area. I’m a better cook, so I cook.

This is small stuff, but for me its principle applies up the levels. We play to our strengths, and while each of us could take care of ourselves, it’s nice to have someone put a hot meal on the table, and to know there’s someone around who can fix the toilet.

The biggest problem in the portrayal of Phaedra is that she is constantly getting into situations which require her to be saved by Lord Elliott. Elliot's arrival was necessary for her release from prison. She could not even mount a donkey by herself. Further, Phaedra is depicted as headstrong and Elliott rational. Phaedra is irrational where Elliott is wise. Elliott is portrayed as the noble man. Elliot is the one to teach Phaedra that true freedome is illusory. I felt that there were few lessons that Elliot was taught in this man/woman struggle.

Again in the most recent book, Secrets of Surrender, the heroine is presented as someone who desires to live on her own terms, yet her actions require her to be saved in the most basic way – to give up her choice to marry in order to save herself from utter ruin.

I told Robin that I think I get where Hunter is going with these books and I questioned whether my own feminist construct (which is far different than the construct of say a Ferraro or Steinem) prevented me from truly understanding these characters.

At the risk of oversharing, I’ll state that financial independence is hugely important to me as well and I identified with the issues that Tessa struggled with in the O’Reilly book. When I was in law school, I lived off my student loan money. It was a very hand to mouth existence. I lost weight primarily because I couldn’t really afford to buy a lot of food (ramen noodles FTW!). I met Ned in my third year of law school and he was in position to help me out. He fed me and housed me and then ultimately married me and this allowed me to take a position with a firm that gave me great experience but not great pay. To a great extent, I saw Tessa as taking the harder road. It would have been much easier for her to cede to Gabe and not pursue a career, not pursue her own independence, but she choose the more difficult path. And ultimately, I think that made her relationship with Gabe stronger because Tessa had security in herself as a person and would never doubt that she was the equal of Gabe.

First I want to highlight this sentence: Independence is being able to do what one wants to do because one wants to do it.

Yes, yes, yes. And your point about needing support for that is a great one, IMO. I think that's what some readers mean when they talk about “partnership” within a relationship. That the “right person” helps you become the person you want to be, and vice versa…Unfortunately, in the same way that working for some real life women isn't a matter of choice, staying at home with kids isn't a matter of choice for others. Which means that, given your definition of independence, neither the working woman nor the SAHM are independent if their choice isn't made freely

I agree with this. I was/am a SAHM because I chose it. My husband and I talked long and hard about this before we had kids. Luckily for us, we were both on the same page. That made the decision and the support that goes along with it easy. So, in my situation it is independence for me because I was able to make the choice I wanted to make.

However, if a woman is a SAHM because her hubby makes her and she really wants to work, then she is not “independent”. She did not make that choice freely.

Same goes for work. My SIL works for the insurance (hubby is self imployed). She’d rather not be working. So, even though she has a career, the kids, the supportive hubby she is not truly independent (though some would think so just to look at her) because she is not making the choice that she feels is best for her.

I never thought about it that way. Thanks for stating what I was thinking but didn’t know it! :o)

So, when reading a book, if the reader feels the heroine has made the decision she really wants to not the decision she has to then the reader will feel the heroine is independent. Well, this reader anyway! ;o)

For what it's worth, I think I might like these books, since I've noticed I tend to enjoy books where the hero takes a lot of rejection. I don't know how much of it in my case is wanting the heroine to be independent and how much it is about the way those heroines in effect make the heroes work hard to prove themselves. I know that I tend to like those elusive heroine/rejected hero combinations.

I would be especially interested in your reactions to Glass’s book, Janine, because I think it does a good job of dealing with the heroine’s past traumas, which are quite extensive. It’s an interesting mix of traditional and non-traditional elements, IMO.

I haven’t read Possession in years and years, and have all but forgotten it, I’m afraid, but it’s sitting on my bookshelf, and I really should go back to it.

At the same time, I haven't had a dayjob for much of my married life because I believe the SAHM has value beyond the “income” and so does my spouse. That's what insurance and retirement is for, because that family contribution Does have value and it needs to be recognized and rewarded if something happens. This is another of those instances where society doesn't often recognize the value of a woman's work, because it's not a paid gig-and yet if one had to PAY someone to do all the things the SAHM does, it will cost you a big bundle. Independence is being able to do what one wants to do because one wants to do it. Having the support of the other people in one's life allows for independence, because if you go it alone, too often you can't do what you want to do. You do what you HAVE to do just to survive.

First I want to highlight this sentence: Independence is being able to do what one wants to do because one wants to do it.

Yes, yes, yes. And your point about needing support for that is a great one, IMO. I think that’s what some readers mean when they talk about “partnership” within a relationship. That the “right person” helps you become the person you want to be, and vice versa.

As to the SAHM issue, I haven’t focused on that in my piece or comments, but I do want to address it, for exactly the reasons you give here. I realize that I probably come across as a reader who doesn’t want SAHM heroines, but that’s not the case at all, and I definitely agree with you that the contributions of SAHM’s are completely undervalued in our society. But I sometimes think they’re overvalued in Romance, or rather that they are a default position in the genre, such that heroines who previous to meeting the hero are very career focused but after falling in love with Mr. Right don’t think twice about abandoning those ambitions for SAHM status. It’s that knee-jerk thing that signals faux independence for me, not the choice itself.

Unfortunately, in the same way that working for some real life women isn’t a matter of choice, staying at home with kids isn’t a matter of choice for others. Which means that, given your definition of independence, neither the working woman nor the SAHM are independent if their choice isn’t made freely. And just like in society, I think that men in Romance *still* have the advantage in terms of freedom and independence, which is something that irks me, especially because Romance is essentially idealized in terms of the way it represents relationships. But even within that idealized structure there seem to be invisible limits for heroines that heroes don’t have to observe, from sexual histories to child-positive attitudes and beyond. I guess what I’m musing on, to some degree, is how independent heroines are allowed to be within the genre as it’s been normed over the years.

“I love you too, but you treated me like shit – and you're going to have to learn that that's not ok” scene that, unfortunately, rarely takes place.

oh yeah, I write those scenes in my head when necessary!

but can I say that I'd prefer if we had people in romance who didn't behave like that to each other to start with?

Depends on what kind of jerk we are talking about. If it’s the kind of hero that is a jerk for 249 pages of a 250 page book (a la’ Diana Palmer) then yeah, I can do without those heroes. If it’s a hero that is being human and making human mistakes, I can handle it. I hope that makes sense.

Also a word in response to Janine's post about trust issues and commitment. I definitely see the tension you are talking about and struggled with it a bit in thinking about this issue. But ultimately I came to the conclusion that the difference lies in how the heroine deals with her issues. Does she do what she can to make herself whole within herself? Does she focus on developing her own strengths? Is she simply afraid of being hurt again, or does she build a life for herself in which she knows she'll be okay no matter what happens to her? The thing about Tessa is that she wanted to make sure that she would be okay no matter what happened with a man -’ that she would not sacrifice more of her life for some guy. So it wasn't that she didn't love Gabe, but she didn't want to be with him in a relationship until she felt she could stand on her own. I don't know if that's responsive to your issue, but I think it depends a lot on individual books and how, as readers, we individually respond to them.

I see what you are saying. Since I haven’t read either Kathleen O’Reilly’s books or the Seressia Glass book, it is harder for me to make that distinction, but I think I understand what you are getting at.

For what it’s worth, I think I might like these books, since I’ve noticed I tend to enjoy books where the hero takes a lot of rejection. I don’t know how much of it in my case is wanting the heroine to be independent and how much it is about the way those heroines in effect make the heroes work hard to prove themselves. I know that I tend to like those elusive heroine/rejected hero combinations.

One of my favorite books that deals with the question of whether or not it is possible to maintain a strong sense of self within a romantic relationship is A.S. Byatt’s Possession. The heroines in that book (there are two of them, in parallel Victorian and contemporary storylines) are both fiercely independent. One of them, referring to the other, has this conversation with the man she loves:

“I feel as she did. I keep my defences up because I must go on doing my work. I know how she felt about her unbroken egg. Her self-possession, her autonomy. I don’t want to think of that going. You understand?”

“Oh yes.”

“I write about liminality. Thresholds. Bastions. Fortresses.”

“Invasion. Irruption.”

“Of course.”

“It’s not my scene. I have my own solitude.”

“I know. You–you would never–blur the edges messily–”

“Superimpose–”

“No, that’s why I–”

“Feel safe with me.”

“Oh no. Oh no. I love you. I think I’d rather I didn’t.”

I’m quoting because I love the book and this question of independence vs. interdependence vs. depedency is one of its most central themes. I don’t think I’ve ever read a better exploration of it, or at least, one that resonated with me more. And even after thinking about it a lot, I’m not sure which side I fall on when it comes to the question of whether there can be independence within a romantic relationship or not.

It’s been a while since I read this, and I do recall thinking somewhere in there that the hero was “winning” a little too often to make me comfortable. And yet, I also recall discussions between them about how independence could accommodate love, and whether it should, and how it should. And because of the era this story took place, the accommodations were different than they would be now, but they were there.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion, and I tend to fall on the side of “If he (or she) has really been a jerk about this, he needs to seriously suffer before he gets what he wants.” At the same time, I haven’t had a dayjob for much of my married life because I believe the SAHM has value beyond the “income” and so does my spouse. That’s what insurance and retirement is for, because that family contribution Does have value and it needs to be recognized and rewarded if something happens. This is another of those instances where society doesn’t often recognize the value of a woman’s work, because it’s not a paid gig–and yet if one had to PAY someone to do all the things the SAHM does, it will cost you a big bundle. Independence is being able to do what one wants to do because one wants to do it. Having the support of the other people in one’s life allows for independence, because if you go it alone, too often you can’t do what you want to do. You do what you HAVE to do just to survive.

And though I’ve waxed long and winded, I’m still not sure I got round to what I really meant to say–but hopefully I got sort of close to it and made sense to boot.

Yep. Hats off to Mrs. G for that wonderful term. But “Disney Whores” is mine, all mine.

And if we ever meet in person, I’ll be tempted to pin a medal on you for that one. I think I laughed so hard I cried when I first saw “Disney whores” on my computer screen.

“Say “Amen Sister!” Praise baby Jaysus…you took the words right out of my mouth and gold plated them.”

I just think she should make him work for it. [Or, her work for it, if she's been the jerk.] I need the “I love you too, but you treated me like shit – and you're going to have to learn that that's not ok” scene that, unfortunately, rarely takes place.

Say “Amen Sister!” Praise baby Jaysus, limecello you took the words right out of my mouth and gold plated them.

If he treated her or she him like that, I agree that such a scene is necessary, but can I say that I’d prefer if we had people in romance who didn’t behave like that to each other to start with?

In other words, books like that don’t do much for me, because even if you get the abject ‘I’m sorry I was a jerk’ scene, I don’t trust that it won’t happen again later. Something about leopards and spots…

IMO, if he’s really hero material, he wouldn’t ask the heroine to give up anything for him. Like Janet/Robin said, my favorite story is where the relationship is about “complementarity and not completion.”

Say “Amen Sister!” Praise baby Jaysus, limecello you took the words right out of my mouth and gold plated them.

Or in geek-speak w00t! I couldn’t agree more.