In how many Romances does the sheik turn out to be English?

Urk…this makes me so angry. After being burned twice back in the 90s, I have sinced avoided anything with “sheikh” in it because they are always half-English and run back to Merry Olde England with their English bride at the end of the story–and the Muslim religion and Middle Eastern culture (separate entities, yet simultaneous), are misrepresented and fetishized for the “danger” factor. In fact, it’s all rather disturbing that “dark” heroes are dangerous and rapacious and crave the white flesh of the heroine, who in turn “tames” and “civilizes” him enough to take him back into high society.

Sorry, but I do think we have to blame romance writers for writing nonsense. Do most have any clue what a belted plaid is?

Some do. I taught a class at RWA’s conference in Atlanta a few years back on the history of Scottish men’s dress with specific emphasis on the development of the plaid/kilt. The full handout with all the historical notes and descriptions was in everyone’s pack of handouts too.

And I l also want to add that every representation is an appropriation to some degree, and that appropriation in and of itself is not a good or bad thing. Some of the most powerful political and social commentary is written as fable or allegory. For me the questions of import are: a) is this a thoughtful portrayal, b) what’s the point of generating this comparison, c) what are the stereotypes being produced and how are they being used (i.e. subverted or affirmed), and d) what is the overall effect of the appropriation?

What frustrates me is what I see as a sort of unself-conscious repetition in the genre (and it’s not limited to the genre, by any means) of certain stereotypes without apparent attempt to examine them in any depth. And I think that’s what we’re talking about here when we talk about “fetishization” — of course all Romance fetishizes certain things, but maybe we need to pay a little more attention to what and why and for what purpose we sentimentalize, romanticize, and otherwise mythologize certain things, whether it be virginity in a heroine or whiteness in a hero.

And Jo Goodman’s last Dennehy sisters book (the one with the nun) worked for me, too.

I know there are others, but those two come to mind right off.

But to go back to your earlier question:

Am still curious (as I meant what I said about not having read enough Highlander romances) about characteristics inherent in Highlander (or native American) heroes, that aren't inherent in other stereotypical heroes.

I’m going to answer the Native American portion of this question, since it’s what I’m most familiar with.

I don’t know if — for me, at least — it’s an issue of what’s inherent about these characters as much as what’s inherent about *what they seem to symbolize for people*, which may, in the end, be the same thing, since it’s all about imagination, but I’m not sure.

Anyway, if you look back over the history of American literature, art, and popular culture, for example, you can see the representation of Native Americans within a context of savagery. Whether it’s standing over a helpless maiden in preparation to scalp her or with a single tear running down a cheek at the idea of littering, the Native American male, especially, has been alternately portrayed as either the “bloody savage” or the “noble savage.” With those portrayals are certain stereotypical things: Native Americans are closer to the land, they are prophets, they are are magical and/or naturally spiritual, they are natural warriors, they are less civilized (which can be a virtue or a problem depending on the context), they are less sophisticated, etc.etc.etc. And the American cultural consciousness has taken great advantage of these stereotypes, crafting the image of Native America either as a) a lost paradise, felled at the hands of civilization, 2) humans in their “natural” uncivilized state, tamed by the hand of civilization, 3) a heathen influence on God fearing Christians, 4) humanity’s last link to nature, 5) nobility embodied, 6) defeated and degraded, a reflection of the evils of Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny, 7) defeated and degraded and a reflection of America’s lost innocence (this was particularly popular after the Vietnam War), 8) defeated, degraded alcoholics — well, you get the idea.

So regardless of what is true of indigenous peoples as individuals, as nations, as communities, etc., they have been demonized and romanticized throughout history as a way of *representing* things that have become seen as synonymous with them and that disregard the complex realities that characterize any individual or group. And these representations have been used to serve the dominant Anglo-American culture. For example, the number of films featuring Native Americans produced during and after Vietnam reflect not so much a desire to understand Native American cultures as to draw a parallel between what the US did in Vietnam and what they did to Native Americans. In other words, the point is to indict the US govt, not to portray NA cultures for the sake of portraying those cultures. Does that make sense?

And Romance has thrived on those representations, most often constructing the so-called “noble savage” as the Romance hero and the “bloody savage” as its villain. And in the case of the noble savage, you often have the hero who is seen as an indictment of white culture, but who is white himself, and who is presented as embodying a) a natural sensuality (those sexy half-naked braves!!), b) a natural instinct about the land and an affinity with nature, c) someone who has been wronged by the dominant culture and who is an underdog, d) a rebel against dominant culture values (a hallmark of Romance regardless of the cultural or racial background of the character, but in this case, enabled by the appropriation of cultural stereotypes), etc. There is often a fetishization of his “bronze” or “swarthy” skin, an eroticizing of his body as culturally other (even if he is racially white) and perhaps an innocence that is intended to portray his status as outside “civilization” somehow.

So for me it’s not so much what the characters inherently possess as it is how they are part of an overall appropriation of indigenous cultures and a distortion of those cultures that serves the dominant culture — either as an embodiment of its worst tendencies, or of its potential or of its wisdom in dominating, etc. And even if some of these characteristics might be true in some general way (i.e. peoples who live off the land will have a different relationship to it than peoples who do not), even those characteristics are generally distorted — sentimentalized, demonized — in order to serve a different agenda (in this case, the romantic appeal of the Romance hero, whose nobility is seen as instinctive, natural, because he’s part of this noble, natural culture, etc.).

I do understand the gut-level eye-roll at the idea of this type of romance. Am just trying to get my mind around the specifics and Robin and Maili have tried to help me through it in the past.

(Also, as to perpetuating stereotypes, I always tell my kids I’m descended from Vikings. Truth is it was probably fishermen. And, you know… slaves.)

Also wondering if this skewed view of Highlands is more old-skool romance than new-skool.

I was referring to the generalizations that the blog post was talking about. I think people who do those really don’t have a clue. However, maybe they can be induced to learn at least a little.

However, the Norman-French (you probably know this, it’s intended as informative for people who don’t) weren’t travelers from France but people who had become Scots. King Robert the Bruce (greatest of the Scottish heroes) was half Norman-French and half Gael.

I won’t lecture on Scotland further. But hopefully this discussion will give some writers a hint that they need to read up a bit on Scotland before they set stories there. :-)

Yes, I know about belted plaids. Highlanders didn’t wear cute little skirts. And the Scottish hero of my first book was a Lowlander, so I have heard rumors of places in Scotland where they wore shoes and everything! (/sarcasm) And the villian of my Highland paranormal novella is a French vampire specifically because he had sound political reason to be at the Scottish court.

By the way, Highland Festivals originated in the Highlands. The first (that I know of–I think the oldest) was licensed by King Robert I shortly after the Battle of Bannockburn.

Sorry, but I do think we have to blame romance writers for writing nonsense. Do most have any clue what a belted plaid is? That there is more to Scotland than the Highlands? What the Highland Clearances were? What the Act of Proscription was and what its penalties were? For that matter, that most lords in Scotland were (and are) at least partially Norman-French?

Sorry to go on, but you hit on one of my pet peeves.

Don't blame Braveheart -’ it started way before that film. It might even pre-date Brigadoon.

Yeah, I don’t think you can blame romance novelists. Maybe we should turn a hard eye on Scottish-American festivals.

It is extremely different to write silly stuff about Texans and Scots or Native Americans. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference needs to do some serious studying before they even consider writing something in a historical context.

Oh, snap! Go on witcher bad self.

The question I've often asked is not “why the fetishization of Scotland?” but “why not the fetishization of Ireland?” in romance novels. There are some, but far fewer, romances set in Ireland or with Irish heroes than there are Scots ones, and I don't know why.

Would it have something to do with terrorists?
Not to get into the political side of things, but for whatever reason, the image of Ireland isn’t as “clean” as the Scottish one.

I can’t read the things. Why some people object? It is beyond offensive to me to treat an existent people as though they are mythical. If you want a mythical people, make one up. Don’t distort and lie about a real people’s history. That the people, whether Scots, Irish or Native American, have suffered both historical defeat and oppression makes that even more offensive.

It is extremely different to write silly stuff about Texans and Scots or Native Americans. Anyone who doesn’t understand the difference needs to do some serious studying before they even consider writing something in a historical context.