TSTM (too stupid to masturbate)

Bwa-ha! Can I please use this in my next critique group meeting? Love it.

Thanks for the brilliant addition to our critical vocabulary.

So glad to contribute to the romance lexicon.

I never came across anything to indicate that the women were viewed as unattractive or undesirable… [they were] intelligent, sometimes scheming, sometimes playful, sometimes clumsy, but always self-possessing and attractive women

To reference the screwball comedies, or even the great romances from Hollywood's Golden Age, those characters were real

I agree that these are well-written, smart, sassy women, and all those characters were created by men. Why do we get so many infantilized heroines from women writers?

Iz wimmin geting stupider?

What I love about questions like this is that you can actually answer them using the scientific method.

My thesis was on women's images in American popular music and was done using a cultural materialist approach. I did a content analysis of the lyrics of the top ten songs over a 30-year period and tracked evaluative dimensions against periods of economic expansion and recession in America. Very, very long story short: women were portrayed as good and passive, or bad and strong, but never good and strong until 1967, and that's only if you assume the song Windy is about a woman (it's not – it's about a dog). During recessionary periods women were always bad and strong. (The study was an attempt to look at stereotypes and scapegoating, etc.)

However! That didn't stop the government from pushing a strong = good image for women when they desperately needed workers for the war effort.

Anyway, it's interesting that cinematography would give us a different picture, since a lot of the screwball comedies were made during the Great Depression.

Plus these tropes are tired, old and BORING!

To me it shows a lack of respect by the author for my (the reader’s) intelligence. I realize that I am probably in the minority in this, but, tough…there are lots of other and better books out there! I’m sticking with them.

BUT…I had to forgive her because she wasn’t ever trained in covert ops and had no idea that honesty wasn’t necessarily the best policy in all cases. Too, Ken never took a few minutes when they were alone to explain to her that she needed to just keep quiet, that in talking to their enemies, she risked both their lives. While I as the reader knew what Ken was planning to do, Savannah the character had no idea. So I the reader thought she was acting stupid, but from her limited perspective, she was only doing what she thought was the right thing.

So in the end, she wasn’t TSTL even though she was ignorant. I think this difference is key in whether or not I can stand a heroine. If she does something that common sense would tell the average Josephine on the street is a truly boneheaded move, I’m likely to toss the book at the wall. But if she’s just ignorant about some facet or another, I can at least excuse her. I may not like her, but I have to give her some slack.

However I’ll admit that I’m a sucker for Mother Theresa heroines who give and give and give so much until everyone around them suddenly realizes what good people these heroines are. I hate myself for loving these kinds of stories, but I blame it on my own character flaws–I *want* to believe that if someone is “good” enough, they’ll eventually be recognized for it. Even though I know it’s twee and unrealistic and probably makes me a TSTL reader. I can’t help it.

Ahem.

I’m generally left baffled by the aims of the romance genre when I read romances with such skewed gender biases. Is the genre “for women by women,” and if so, what precisely does that mean? I’m generally attracted to the heroine’s journey, and my romances reflect that. However, I ultimately desire to achieve a balance between my h/h–which is what I like to read.

However, I do believe the TSTL heroine is just as “perfect” and idealized as the majority of heroes in romance. The TSTL heroine never truly makes a gaff because the she’s just so darn lovable, and there’s never a moment where she doubts the hero’s affection and (some form of [warped or not]) respect for her. In real life, that guy with whom you’ve been flirting with may look at you weird if you suddenly spilled ice cream on your shirt, or that social gaff may land you in hot water. There just aren’t any real-life consequences or bumps on the road for either the hero or the heroine in a romance novel, which is the genre’s greatest loss, IMO.

To reference the screwball comedies, or even the great romances from Hollywood’s Golden Age, those characters were real. For all the gloss and glitter, their actions and words were consistent and realistic for the situation, and if a character like Nora Charles fell flat on her face (or, in the case of Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby, his back and his hat), she carried it off with aplomb–it wasn’t a ploy to make her look endearingly cute and oops-I’m-so-clumsy (twirling hair). And the men were just as tough and sensitive (check out Gary Cooper in Ball of Fire for the perfect “absent-minded professor).

I said explicitly that if the heroine was going to make stupid choices, that would be fine as long as it was part of the character arc and that she owned the stupidity and then tried to move forward. But all too often the heroine is acting stupidly in order to advance the plot – provide suspense, but, I think, more often than not, to provide a foil for the hero's masculinity and heroicness.

I agree with Jane, both times. I don’t want perfect heroines, but I want her stupid choices to make sense in character. And if she’s too stupid to see that her choices were stupid, then I’m going to lose interest. Dim secondary characters are quite amusing, but I can’t handle dim main characters.

I also have problems with TSTL heroes, though. I get particularly irritated with the ones who don’t learn trust until it is almost too late (like the wife is dying in childbirth in some obscure locale because he sent/drove her away, not believing the child was his. Or the equivalent.)

I do think there’s a good argument to be made about using the stupid behavior of the heroine to allow the hero a way to look good, and there are teeth-gnashing gender paradigms there, for sure. And Hortense, I LOVE “TSTM” and will now use it frequently!! Thanks for the brilliant addition to our critical vocabulary.

It's interesting that no book read or film viewed, will be the same for everyone. I perceived some shenanigans in the movie but then I analyze films while refering to the scripts.

Which parts did you think were contrived? ::curious::

I just had to quote that LOL what I wouldn't give to read the above scene.

Me, too!!!

Also, does anyone think they photoshopped the color of that cat’s eyes? I can’t stop staring at that picture, lol.

I like an imperfect heroine, but what I don’t like is a heroine who is made to seem *lesser* than the hero in order to a) advance the plot, b) make her seem vulnerable (SEP’s Nobody’s Baby But Mine being a prime offender of this, IMO), c) give the hero a chance to shine, or d) make her less intimidating to the reader.

There are instances in which a heroine does something that makes me want to slap her, like the heroine of Victoria Dahl’s A Rake’s Guide To Pleasure when she pushes the hero away, because I know how wrongheaded her actions are. But if I believe that she is acting the only way she can within her life circumstances, and if she eventually does the smart thing, then it’s okay. In fact, the dramatic tension that can come from those instances can be very effective and smart in terms of the book’s composition.

When I get into trouble is when I want to slap the *book* because the heroine is nothing more than a prop or a bait and switch. Where the writing itself doesn’t come across as so clever because the heroine cannot carry the weight of her own character, and where the manipulation is so visible to me that the character is upstaged by the machinations of the writing and the plotting.

Heh. I find this column ironic, since I wrote a blog post a year or so ago on this very topic and got pretty much vilified here for my opinion that the current state of romance/chick lit is overrun with infantilized heroines (and yeah, the part that most people got up in arms about: the male writers I read did a better job creating complex and mature female characters).

My recollection is that it was your elevation of male authors above female authors that people objected to, with the generalization about heroines simply being seen as a vehicle to forward that thesis.

I try very hard to avoid TSTL heroines. On the other hand, I also try to avoid MarySue heroines, who just seems to perfect to live (TPTL?). There has to be a middle ground, doesn’t there? A heroine that is….human, who makes mistakes and learns from them. And yes, sometimes the heroine doesn’t learn from her mistakes and is either hit over the head with them or trips and falls flat on her face :) And I don’t mind if the author shows that happening to a heroine, because sometimes things are obvious to everyone but the person at the centre….

Oh, and I have to stick my hand up and admit to helping family members. Two reasons – 1) duty and 2) there isn’t anyone else capable and stuff needs to be sorted. Probably not a suitable reason for a heroine in a book, but…

orannia

PS Jane – I’m looking forward to next week’s post :)

PS

I get being frustrated with a TSTL heroine, but I think we throw the term around and use it any time a heroine does something not-so-bright. To me that's not TSTL. Fact is, people do stupid things all the time. If the hero and heroine in a book are brilliant all the time, how are the growing? Let them do dumb human things that are not always in their self-interest – relatable things we can all see happening – and then let them grow. Seems to me that makes a better character arc than the all-smart-all-the-time chick.

I agree with HelenKay too. I don’t mind a heroine if she starts off doing something stupid, especially in historicals where the heroine tends to be younger than in contemporaries. If she grows a person, I can really admire her.
And in the case of contemporaries, one of my favourite characters is Blair Mallory in Linda Howard’s To Die For and Drop Dead Gorgeous. I’ve seen where a lot of readers can’t stand her and call her TSTL – but I don’t find her that way at all. To me, she’s someone who knows her own worth, but isn’t above using the ‘dumb blond’ personna to get her way. If some fall for it, that’s on them.

I would find the top romances of each year (like, say the ten NY Times best selling romances) going back since the time of Carole Lombard. If the NY Times wasn’t tracking best selling romances that far back in time, I’d have to modify my methodology, but it can be done. I would then create a checklist of potential infantile heroine behavior. Jane made a great start with her blog. (walking alone in dark alley, having unprotected sex in non-historical setting, whatever else was on Jane’s list, etc.) Whenever the heroine does any of the said behavior, the book gets a check. A book could have multiple checks. Then you could create a graph. On the x axis you’d have year, and on the y axis you’d have number of checks in ten best-selling romances.

If the line went up, you’d know if heroines are acting stupider than they used to. If the line went down, you’d know they were acting smarter. If the line stayed the same, then no change. No more guessing!

Science project anyone?

So, in other words, the public wanted and enjoyed screwball comedies. The movies themselves never (or rarely, I haven't seen every film) punished the women. And the leading men had to prove themselves to be worthy of these strong women in order to win them away from “unworthy” men. If the standard characterizations and themes weren't popular, the studios would not have backed the films.

Sing it, sister!

And men of that era did, indeed, find these women incredibly attractive. My dad, who is 80, grew up with big old crushes on Barbara Stanwyck and Jean Arthur, for instance.

Unfortunately, being a kickass urban fantasy heroine doesn't save you from the fictional stupidity gene. I can think of a couple right off the top of my head whose decisions and actions routinely make me question their intelligence, and one in particular who acknowledges her stupidity but revels in it and does nothing to change it.

Too bad. Kick-ass and stupid is probably the worst combination.

—

To me TSTL is someone who doesn’t learn from doing something dumb. I mean, that’s the whole point of the acronym, right? Darwinism in action? If a character does something then learns, that’s character growth and a good thing. If a character does something stupid over and over and over, that’s TSTL, and often is used to show she’s a feisty girl. I came to the horrified conclusion that it’s some people’s idea of feminism.

Speaking of older movies, I would so love to see an Auntie Mame-like character as a heroine in a romance novel. Witty, big-hearted, aggressive, very people intelligent, but especially very happy with who she is. Has it ever happened? I have the feeling I’ll just have to go watch Ms Russell again.

…and I looked askance at Stephanie Plum, because that's exactly why I gave up on that series: Stephanie has been a bounty hunter for years and still leaves her apartment without her gun OR a charged-up taser OR a charged-up cellphone. Sweet baby Jesus on a unicorn, girl: Grow a brain.

I so liked Stephanie Plum for the first 2-3 books, then had to stop after the fifth book. I just could not put myself through it any longer. Especially after reading J.D. Robb “In Death” series; it just made it more painful to read about her inept-ness.

The point is, movie studios have always existed for one thing. To make money. If a genre, style, or actress is not paying the bills, then they don't stick it out for years.

Absolutely! When a production company reads a script, it must contain at least one of five elements to be considered for option. Genre flip-flop is on that list and with romance typically portraying women as weaklings saved by devilish heros, it can be desirable for film that a strong heroine find her own way and HEA with a wonderful, unheroic man.

[The Philadelphia Story] doesn’t rely on plot shenanigans to keep it moving…

It’s interesting that no book read or film viewed, will be the same for everyone. I perceived some shenanigans in the movie but then I analyze films while refering to the scripts.

Now, if the movie was just a triangle between Tracy, Dexter, and George, then it would very much seem like the whole point is to shape Tracy into a more acceptable woman–softer, more forgiving, not on her pedestal. In other words, knock her down to size and put her in her place. But Macaulay complicates that, because he adores her. He adores everything about her. So we’ve got 3 potential suitors–George who sees her as a Goddess, and when she falls from that pedestal, she falls hard (and it crushes Tracy that he would think the worst of her and not even forgive her, which causes her to understand what she did to Dexter). Macaulay who sees her as a woman unlike all the other women, but still just a bit out of reach because of the fire (“the holocaust”) that burns inside of her. And Dexter, who knows she has it in her to be just human, with weakness, and frailty, that needs to be forgiven. A woman who holds herself to a standard that’s far, far too high and as a result, holds everybody else to that standard. He doesn’t want her to change and bring him his slippers. He doesn’t want her to offer her “paw” in submission. He wants her to view him as an equal instead of as a priest in the service of a Goddess.

I find that to be one of the best messages of any movie ever. A woman should not be placed on a pedestal–the inevitable fall will kill her. Tracy didn’t even do anything wrong, and George wad disgusted with her. Rather, she should be an equal, a partner in a loving relationship. Tracy didn’t need to be knocked off her pedestal–she needed to simply walk off it herself (with the help of Macaulay. Dexter couldn’t do it and neither could George. On the flip side, she helped Macaulay return to earth too, because he was a huge snob. Like he said to Dex when he was drunk, alcohol brought him down to Dexter’s level. They both needed to learn a lesson about expectations).