Fans of Interracial Romance discussion

As a writer, I am a firm believer that a writer or author should write the story they like. Own their story.

When I read a book, I start off reading for the hero and then heroine. She has to be his fit. They have to have chemistry and no I am not talking about sex. I love tension and great chemistry.

I have been reading books for a very, very long time and have came across some where I did not care for the heroine. The heroine did not fit the hero and she was just plain annoying. I hate when a hero and heroine do not have any chemistry whatsoever and yet they are paired together.

Being sassy, bossy, too strongly independent, etc. can make the heroine unlikable in my eyes. Those things can make her annoying.

When I write my heroines, I make sure that she fits with the hero and I want my readers to see that they fit. I want my readers to see that my heroine can be likable too.

If I start to read a book and do not like the heroine, I can't finish the book. If I am reading a sample to a book and can't stand the heroine, I will not finish the sample.

I know that I can't be the only one that feels that way about some heroines.

If the heroine fit the hero, most likely I will like her.

Example: Sam Starett is my baby and Alyssa fits him just right and that's why I love her too. They are my favorite couple outside of my stories.

Hello Arch:

Great question. I prefer to read about a heroine who is very independent; however, I cannot really abide heroines who are 1) TSTL 2) sniveling, crying, whining, milquetoast doormats and 3) giggles incessantly. I’m really not sure why authors write such unlikeable heroines. Perhaps, the author provides a scenario where the woman is initially presented as a victim of domestic and/or sexual abuse, and over time, she gets stronger and more assertive. That’s the only reason I can think of. Maybe these are the types of women the author has encountered and doesn’t view them as unlikeable.

My question is this-why do authors write about heroes who are unlikeable in romance novels, but few readers complain about it? Food for thought?

SassafrasfromAmazon wrote: "... My question is this-why do authors write about heroes who are unlikeable in romance novels, but few readers complain about it? Food for thought?"

This is my question too, my biggest question about romance.

I personally don't come across many FMCs that I dislike, many of the 'unlikable' women that other readers complain about in books I have enjoyed, to me are just women that act like so many do in real life. I don't always think they are favourite characters, but I actively dislike very few of them. I also don't care about the few truly unlikeable women that I have come across, and in fact I quite admire the authors for being brave enough to write them (because they do exist) when so many of the men are so highly problematic in so many ways in vast swathes of romance stories across all the sub-genres and are hero-worshipped for it.

Male main characters can get away with so much and it's brushed aside as 'oh, well he is an alpha' when in actual fact he is toxic. Weak, insecure, stalker-y, abusive, slutty, controlling a-hole with double standards and no actual backbone. Fighting and scheming and dominating only shows me they lack the skills, power and knowledge to lead (not manage) honestly and openly. And then there's the women swooning over him in the 'Ooh isn't he strong, and hot, and can take care of me...' ways... it's eye rollingly tiresome and offensive to me. And these issues are so rarely challenged on page as being highly questionable behaviours.

I know I'm definitely deep in the minority here, but I honestly just don't get it, it flummoxes me every single day. From the most popular trends and tropes, the things that most women romance readers consider the 'fantasy' of romance... just ain't it for me. Gimme all the real, warts and all, even if it means the women are a bit silly, or giggly, or whining etc at times, because we are all a bit like that at times, no matter how strong and well put together we are... because we are human.

I also find it annoying when the main female characters - who we're suppose to root for, right? - are extremely unlikeable. That could run the gamut from being TSTL, crybaby whiners, to jealous backstabbing 'friends', etc. They don't need to be perfect, but they do need to be somewhat approachable and likeable. You can guarantee that in my writing, unlikeable women will NOT be getting an HEA. (Well - that also goes for men of that ilk as well).

Even though I write within the paranormal genre, I prefer my female protags to be likeable and have common sense. They work and have goals prior to meeting their mates. I also prefer them to have normal names, so a Brigid Flannigan or Carolina Mercado will be preferred over an Alluriana Maristazia von Graff, or a Kiki LaKanisha Renee Johnson. Really?

As for unlikeable male protags? I'm stumped by all of the raves the uber-alpha males in 'dark romance' get, since most of them are abusive and/or just plain evil. Although...evil can be sexy depending on the story/twist.

The most annoying heroine is one who is swayed by sex. There’s a major issue/ red flag with the hero but instead of discussing the issue like adults, the heroine is dickmatized. Adult dialogue seems to be missing from most romance novels.

I believe there are wider forces at play, not the least of which is norms that have been inculcated into how we were brought up. There are subtle and not so subtle messages proffered to women that we take in consciously on subconsciously that the man is perfect and the woman is who needs the work. Take Cosmo or any number of women themed magazines: if I had a dollar for every "how to keep your man" "how to attract a man", "best places where to find a man", I would rival Jeff Bezos for being the number 1.
Where do you see the same type of articles in men themed media geared towards men?
Then I suspect some women write what they know; or having gorged themselves on idiotic "reality" shows, perpetuate the trope that you have to be loud, lips and neck snapping, come from the ghetto to be a heroine. How many books have you read where the heroine is middle class, college educated and just an average every day person a lawyer, doctor, scientist, judge, police woman, professor, tech mogul, marketing guru? It seems to me that because writers have never been exposed to people in these professions they have no basis on which to draw to form a heroine from this substrata. They then base them on waitresses, strippers, hard working waitresses, mama issues to the point of you gots to be kidding me with this foolishness. I so welcome writers who break this mold...

Thinking as a reader as well as a writer.

I really believe a lot of this comes down to a convention in romance that there needs to be strong tensions for a romance novel to work. A shortcut way of creating tension is by creating characters who tend towards the dramatic.

There's a convention as well that characters who are too normal, who live happy and drama free lives, aren't sympathetic, and this is across the board, not just in romance. They are too boring, and that doesn't make for exciting reading.

That has always baffled me. So have we come to a place in popular culture that normal is aberrational?

This is about male characters as well, but since we are talking about female characters, that is what I'll focus upon.

So she has to be stubborn to the point of foolishness. Or she has to be some kind of drama queen, with a life out of control, etc.

Justine wrote: "I believe there are wider forces at play, not the least of which is norms that have been inculcated into how we were brought up. There are subtle and not so subtle messages proffered to women that ..."


I love the points you are making here.

I don't necessarily think the heroines are consciously written to be more unlikable in romance than heroes.

I will preface this as saying, this is obviously not about every book. nor do I think it is endemic of the entire genre. But I do think for a certain segment of both the writing community and the reading community, the emphasis in many romance novels is the story of the hero. The writing is geared toward making the hero as desirable as possible to the reader which the majority of which are heterosexual women. How many times have we heard the term 'book boyfriend' when talking about a swoony hero, but nothing similar for a fantastic heroine?

So in that sense the hero is imbued with all sorts of desirable characteristics meant to be attractive. He is aspirational: He has to be masculine, take charge, rich (so many billionaires!!) , the sexiest lover imaginable with the biggest peen, a fighter, tough, always the top of the chain -- if he's a shifter he is the Alpha, if he is in law enforcement, he is A sheriff, if he is in the military he is the elite of the elite -- Navy Seal, Special Forces etc.

With all that going for him, what woman in her right mind will say no? So the question for the writer becomes how to keep them apart? And the answer is, more often than not, in order to create tension and keep the couple apart, the onus is usually written as a failing of the heroine's, not the hero's. She is the one who keeping them apart. How many times have you read a book where the hero has made it clear he wants her and is willing to do whatever and he's offering her the sun and the moon and she is the one holding him at arm's length for no reason that makes sense? These are the books that frustrate me because the only impediment to the couple is supposedly the heroine's reluctance. And more often than not, that reluctance isn't given enough plot or character motivation to make it believable and thus the heroine is put in a position of antagonist to the furtherance of the romance which in turn can make her "unlikable."

I have written in lot of my reviews that I read for the heroine, If I like her than my feelings of the book are going to be generally positive. If I don't like her, no matter how supercalifragilistic awesome sauce you make the hero, I will not be as happy about the book as a whole. I personally love complex and prickly heroines. They can be snarky, mean, bossy... whatever just don't make them stupid. And don't raise the hero on a pedestal at the expense of the heroine's story and character.

Muscles does not move me. A lot of books have pictures of shirtless men on the cover. I really like a book with silhouette characters or no characters at all. Many times the man on the book and the man inside the book does not match. I like to picture how the hero and heroine looks to me.

To me Bailey Chase is Sam and young Vanessa Williams is Alyssa.

I am a fan of nerds too. I find them attractive and that's why Dave Malkoff is my second favorite Suzanne Brockmann hero. I like Sophia Ghaffari too and that's why from the start I knew they were going to be together.

I see Speed, my baby from CSI Miami as Dave and Stephanie March from Law & Order SVU as Sophia.

I like heroes with flaws. I like when he fits the heroine and she fits him.

I want to make it clear that I am not saying that being sassy, independent, etc. Is Unlikeable, but some heroines that walks in these shoes are unlikable and can be annoying.

Example: If the FBI heroine is described as being tough as nail, lol, why does she has to body slam a bad guy in the front of the hero to show how tough she is and gets mad at the hero for trying to help her with the bad guy?

Some heroines do not need to be with the hero. Make the hero and heroine fit.

Justine wrote: "I believe there are wider forces at play, not the least of which is norms that have been inculcated into how we were brought up. There are subtle and not so subtle messages proffered to women that ..."

You are so spot-on! Regarding Cosmo...it's good for lining a litter box.

The whole point of a romance is supposed to be telling the story of how two people get to know each other, and both change enough so that together they will create a whole. If you don't like the heroine or hero by the end of the book, then that's not a romance you'll enjoy. Not liking either of them at the start, is okay, as long as they grow into better people by the end.

I've written a couple of books where the heroine was not liked by some reviewers. Usually because she's independent to a fault. In one, she's a business woman by day, and a biker queen on weekends, when she works out her frustrations by riding her Harley (and the guys who "ride" with her.) But a tall Russian man makes moves on her, and tries to convince her that she only needs him. He doesn't share. During the course of the story, he doesn't tame her, but learns enough about her to make her see how having him in her life is the perfect option.

I find it unfair when the heroine's sex life and choices are what make some readers decide they don't like her. This is book-slut-shaming. Women should be free to make the choices that make sense to them, just like men can be. No one calls out a man for being honest about enjoying sex. So don't call out women either.