I can’t wait until romance novels are studied formally in academia. Laura Vinvanco (sp?) is one of my biggest heroes for endeavouring to do this.

Janine,

Vulnerable, yes! Interesting, but I buy it.

I think Ms. Howard has done some interesting things with her heroines in the past few years than before. They’re as complexly constructed as heroes and I seem to remember so many of her earlier heroes rather than the heroines, but now I think they’re equally memorable (for whatever reasons )

Drea was more interesting than Simon to me as well, perhaps because she was more vulnerable? Linda Howard’s heroes always get so much attention but I often find her heroines at least as compelling.

I also like reading about twisted people because they’re not boring. Then again I also agree with Jennie that most of the time, I’d rather not read about a pedophile or a serial killer as the hero of a romance. And I think my tolerance for flawed characters is very high.

I like reading books about twisted people because they are not boring. Thinking about this story, I think Drea was the more interesting character than Simon, at least to me. I did think Simon very much fit a traditional Linda Howard hero role, which is a combination of almost vile brutality mixed with god-like sexuality that somehow works. I don’t know how, and since that’s not a hero I gravitate toward writing, I’m not going to analyze what she does that makes it work. I think it’s the Presents hero as well.

I didn’t read Hannibal, either. That’s just so, so wrong in so many ways.

Actually, SPOILER FOR “HANNIBAL” TO FOLLOW,

Clarice and Hannibal *do* become a couple and have a quasi-HEA in the sequel, “Hannibal”. And it is just *wrong* in every way, IMHO.

That was why I never read Hannibal, even though I had read and loved both Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs, and had been waiting years for the next book to come out. But when I got a whiff of what happens there, I just couldn’t imagine the Clarice I had loved in The Silence of the Lambs making such a choice.

I just assumed this was an odd “romance” in a similar way that Silence of the Lambs is a kind of a “romance”. I know that Hannibal Lector and Clarice were never a “couple”, nor did they have a HEA, but he did grow to respect her and come as close to empathy with her as he was able to do within his own self.

Actually, SPOILER FOR “HANNIBAL” TO FOLLOW,

Clarice and Hannibal *do* become a couple and have a quasi-HEA in the sequel, “Hannibal”. And it is just *wrong* in every way, IMHO.

I just assumed this was an odd “romance” in a similar way that Silence of the Lambs is a kind of a “romance”. I know that Hannibal Lector and Clarice were never a “couple”, nor did they have a HEA, but he did grow to respect her and come as close to empathy with her as he was able to do within his own self.

I see Simon and Drea’s relationship as a similar type of thing. Simon does grow to have feelings toward and is protective of Drea. So when I used the word “redemption” that change in his persona was partially what I was referring to.

Boy, this has been a super interesting discussion!

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, it's bizarre to me that Drea is viewed as having degraded herself by being a semi-prostitute,

I actually understand this part. Having sex regularly with someone you don’t find attractive and don’t enjoy being with has to be kind of degrading or at least, damaging to the soul for a lot of women, because it’s a kind of betrayal of oneself. Actually doing anything that goes against what you truly want can be degrading if you do it often enough, but sex is such an intimate thing that I can see how for many women it would intensify the feeling of being degraded, at least when those feelings finally caught up with them. I felt that was partly why sex with Simon was so shattering to Drea — it made her feelings about sex with Salinas catch up with her.

but I think few people would apply the word “degrading” to Simon's profession. But what could be more degrading, dehumanizing and soul-killing than murder for profit?

Well, yeah, that’s very true for most human beings. And that was one of the reasons why I loved Stuart’s Black Ice, and loved Robin’s observation that Chloe was the mirror of Bastien’s degraded soul. The fabulousness of that book was that the hero was an assassin but he was starting to break down because it was so hard for him to remain one.

I would have loved it if Howard had approached it that way, but I’ve observed that Howard’s heroes are usually kind of superhuman. Howard had a book with an assassin heroine who goes off the reservation, Kiss Me While I Sleep. I remember that at the end of that book, the heroine starts seeing a therapist. And I remember feeling that that was the double standard at work, because Howard’s assassin heroes (like Simon, or John Medina from All the Queen’s Men) somehow don’t need therapy.

But I also think that we romance readers are culpable in this; many of us don’t want the hero to be someone who is in need of therapy. We look for strength in a hero. It’s like what Kathleen O’Reilly said before about how if you compare Salinas and Simon, most people will prefer Simon because he was a rock. Strength is attractive to people, and especially to women. I think there’s some kind of primtive pull to the notion of a man who can protect us, who can stand between us and danger, or who won’t falter even when we do. Of course, it’s a fantasy. But it sure is attractive to view men this way because it makes it safer for us to falter sometimes.

I really enjoy reading about assassin heroes. I prefer the ones who face a stronger internal conflict about killing, like Bastien in Black Ice or Charles in Patricia Briggs’ new series, because I love romances that deal with moral issues. But I can enjoy assassins as heroes even when that’s not the case, and I think it’s because (A) I don’t take it anywhere as seriously as I would in real life, and (B) in real life, I hate violence but reading about it allows me to enjoy it vicariously.

I think human beings have these dark impulses, and so, we get these illicit thrills from reading or watching movies about men who kill. Not a comforting thought, but there you have it.

We've all been talking about the gender double standard but I wonder if there isn't another double standard at work here -’ the fact that as a society we have a lot more tolerance for violence in our popular culture than for sex.

Yes – I’m not sure I made that point as much as I meant to (I got sidetracked ranting about the gender double standard), but that was sort of what I wasn thinking of with the “sex and death” title. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, it’s bizarre to me that Drea is viewed as having degraded herself by being a semi-prostitute, but I think few people would apply the word “degrading” to Simon’s profession. But what could be more degrading, dehumanizing and soul-killing than murder for profit?

So I wonder if the book isn't also easier on Simon than on Drea not just because he is a man but because there is an assumption (and it is correct, IMO) that most of us readers secretly get a thrill from Simon's ability to dispense violence (which we associate with strength and masculinity). And so we don't want to see him punished for that.

That’s kind of why the trend of assassin heroes bugs me. Soft men hold no real appeal for me, but the push toward ultra-masculinity and ultra-alphaness in a lot of the books I’ve read lately is kind of turning me off. It seems like such a narrow definition of masculinity – violence and killing people. I just looked at my book log, and (partly because I’ve read a bunch of Nalini Singhs in a row), it’s been quite a while (like, months and months) since I’ve read a straight romance in which the hero wasn’t a killer. They weren’t all straight assassins, but they were all definitely men who had killed, and not just in war. It’s kind of strange to me.

I think the issues revolving around the use of “gay” have been beaten into the ground.

I second that, but I would like the thread to stay open in case more people want to comment on the original topic.

you did nothing wrong, and you don't have anything to apologize for

Holy fucking crap, that’s a stupid thing to say.

Yes, she did, and yes she does, which she did.

move to Shakespeare writing paedophilic characters, even if it was only flippant

You have a problem with conversations roving freely over topics? Are you new to the internet or something?

And then we have the defense of gay people.

I know, I know ::sigh:: We should just let those nasty homos suffer. God knows they deserve to.

the word that comes to my mind is IRONIC.

Funny, the word that comes to my mind ends in ‘RONIC’ too.

Are you really this stupid and mean-minded, or are you trolling?

Meredith’s ill-considered remark left me staggered. You, on the other hand, just made me furious. How dare you tell someone it’s okay to be homophobic? You probably cosy up to racists and tell them that people just look for ways to be offended too.

Meredith isn’t being criticised for being a bad woman. She’s being criticised for using ‘gay’ as a pejorative. Which is unequivocally bad, and not to be encouraged in anyone, male or female. Don’t do a Palin – it’s not even working for her any more.

I had no idea my one comment was going to get everyone so up at arms. I’m sorry if I offended anyone. In my sad defense, having grown up surrounded by gay culture (among other things, both of my primary father figures are a gay couple who have been together for 20 plus years) no one has ever called me out on the use of this term in this way. Maybe they’re more forgiving because they know me. Maybe they all secretly hate me. Maybe they all think me an idiot. Wasn’t my intention to start a firestorm.

Meredith, for the record, I’d like to write that you did nothing wrong, and you don’t have anything to apologize for. Firestorms, like this, are common on online forums. But just think how interesting the comments developed in this thread. I am always amazed at how we can be discussing *sex and death* one moment and then move to Shakespeare writing paedophilic characters, even if it was only flippant. And then we have the defense of gay people.

When you think about your comments in context with what the actual discussion was about, assassins and drug lords, women struggling to live in such a world, well,….hmm, the word that comes to my mind is IRONIC.

Meredith (who will probably refrain from commenting from now on because clearly she is more intelligent in person than in print)

Redemption in Romance is really a fascinating concept, IMO, because it can have so many overtones. For example, it can be almost religious in nature; it can be a matter of grace or good works. It can be effective through True Love, a gift offered by the beloved. Or it can be entirely secular, won by groveling and serious behavior modification. For me, anyway, the terms of the redemption can make the difference between acceptance and rejection of the outcome. For example, if I feel that redemption is won by, say, no longer being a “whore,” that doesn’t work for me, because I’m not a big fan of earning love through adherence to socially imposed moral standards. I tend to be in the love is a gift camp and individual character is about more than the state of one’s vagina (or, in the case of a hero, it’s about more than just loving the heroine and having a 9-12 inch penis).

To be fair, I suppose one could argue that Drea’s redemption was more about valuing and respecting herself, which precluded the behavior she had been indulging in before. I don’t necessarily believe Howard saw it that way, but my issue wasn’t about so much about Drea being redeemed, per se. It was all the other stuff that went around it.

Many of you seem to think that Simon was somehow redeemed or at least judged less harshly. I disagree. If you re-read the ending of DA, it's clear that Simon wasn't redeemed. Drea has a vision that he will be redeemed at some point in the future, but he hasn't achieved that state yet. Also, I believe another point that was missed in this discussion is that Drea died and Simon didn't. I don't think LH was saying there was a moral equivocacy between Drea's sins and Simon's – it's just that Drea died and had to acknowledge her sins. Since those sins weren't heinous, she was given a second-chance. If Simon had died, I think we all know where he would have ended up. With his list of killings, I doubt there would have been a second chance. That said, it's true that LK does leave the impression that Simon will do something in the future that may earn him redemption. The reader just doesn't know what that act is.

You may be right. But that just makes me get on my feminist high horse again and say, “Can you imagine a romance where the heroine is completely unredeemed of horrible behavior at the end of the book, and yet the reader is supposed to accept the HEA with the idea that she may be redeemed at some point in the future?”

For me it was more that it affected his present, but it was all tied in Drea. He reminded me of Amara from Hostage to Pleasure (N. Singh), where only one person can affect/effect them. To me, Simon was affected by Drea and was willing to change for Drea, but not for himself or to save himself.

That’s interesting. I recently read Hostage to Pleasure, and though I didn’t love it, I found Amara an intriguing character. It would be hard to imagine her as a romance heroine though. I do see the similarities to Simon – in both cases, you have characters who really seem to have something organically wrong with them psychologically. I suppose since the Singh books are futuristic, the possibility exists that she could somehow be reformed through medication or some sort of treatment. Simon exists in our world, so to speak. So I’m not sure how much could be done for him. I just find the idea of him as a hero rather creepy. I guess part of it is that it bothers me that it doesn’t bother others more (sorry for the convoluted phrase) that Simon essentially doesn’t care about anyone but Drea. I can understand in some ways the appeal of that fantasy, but Simon was realistically remorseless and consciousless, and I just don’t get the draw there. I think mentally ill characters need to be treated with more responsibility than Howard treated Simon with.