Romance heroes used to smolder. Now, it feels as though half of them want to hold your purse while you process your feelings, and the other half want to handcuff you to a headboard and call it forever. Somewhere along the way, much of desire in romance split into two extremes—one soft, one savage—and I’m not loving it.
Everywhere you look, today’s heroes are either quietly, almost reverently devoted to the heroine, or they want to possess her completely. It’s golden retrievers and mafiosos, and very little in between.
The golden retriever hero is gentle in temperament but not passive. He doesn’t posture or intimidate. He just wants her—fully—and he’s often remarkably good at showing it. In bed, he takes charge. He’s confident, generous, and in complete control, but always in the service of her needs. His own pleasure is present but secondary. What makes him sexy isn’t aggression; it’s certainty. He knows what she likes, and he’s happy to give it to her. His appeal comes from how safe he makes the heroine feel—and how hard he works to earn her trust and care for her happiness. He’s competent, tender, and endlessly patient. In today’s world, that fantasy is both powerful and pervasive.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is the mafioso fantasy. This man doesn’t wait. He doesn’t wonder. His desire is immediate and absolute. He may be violent. He may be controlling. But he wants the heroine so badly that he’ll protect her from anyone and anything—often with methods that raise eyebrows and blood pressure. He doesn’t just claim her; he restructures the world around her. These heroes do not court. They decide. And while their behavior would be deeply alarming in real life, they hold a steady grip on the genre’s imagination. Their appeal isn’t subtle. It’s blunt and consuming, the kind of fantasy that leaves no room for doubt.
It’s not hard to understand why these extremes have taken hold. Both offer the heroine—and the reader—a version of certainty. One provides sanctuary. The other offers obsession. Neither makes us wait to find out if the heroine is desired. That part is settled from the beginning.
But lately I’ve started to wonder whether these fantasy structures, however satisfying they can be, also flatten something essential. In both cases, the hero’s desire is so complete, so singular, that the emotional balance starts to tip. When his every action exists to serve or dominate, where does that leave his own longing, his agency, his risk? Desire, when it works, isn’t one-directional. It’s not just a spotlight fixed on the heroine. It’s a connection between two people—uneven at times, yes, but mutual. When the fantasy removes that tension, it may still be hot, but it feels somehow off.
So I want to know: who are the heroes that got under your skin lately? Are you a fan of either type of hero? If so, can you share a few you love? You hate? And do you think I’m onto something here or, and this is always possible, delusional? Lemme know.
Next week, we’ll talk heroines. But this week, I want to hear about the men.
Heroes I hate -Christian from Lady be good by Meredith Duran. He’s too grr stereotypical broody alpha with not really much going on.
Lord Winter from the fortune hunter by Laura Kinsale. I hated him because I found him irresponsible and immature a bit off his head ,the couple in general are.And I don’t imagine the couple staying together in the long run they don’t have much chemistry, disliked this book.
Another mmc I hated Mckenna from Again the magic by Lisa kleypas, again stoic broody too serious not really much else going on.
Heroes I love Nick O’Shea from Luck be a lady by Meredith Duran. Yes he’s also an alpha but he’s more complex well rounded he has a sense of humour that’s cheeky but also has a vulnerable soft side but he’s from a very poor background so is a bit rough and ready .More heroes like this please.
Nathaniel from lady of Sin has a dry sense of humour a bit snarky but also has a serious side because of his job. But also is a good ,caring person.
Last but certainly not least I would probably pick Adrian from At your pleasure by Meredith Duran he reminded me of a more serious Nathaniel has more problems of course given the time period and him being a Catholic. Has a wry and dry sense of humour but would would do anything to be with Nora despite everything. Their not everyone’s cup of tea but just my picks. Sorry for the long ramble.
I’m with you about Christian. I found him uninteresting. McKenna is also a rather dull lead for me.
I too adore Nick–he is a great hero, flawed but perfect for Catherine. I’ve not read the Hunter. I like Adrian but I find Nora to be so frustrating in her blindness to see the truth about her family that their love story isn’t my favorite.
Duran, though, is one of my favorite writers of heroes. It’s tough to beat Phin, Julian, or James in my book.
I used to like James as a hero but I re read BbYT recently and found him immature especially for his age early thirties I can think of a younger man acting like this but not a thirty something year old man.
As for Julian and Phin I liked them but they they don’t make my top list.
My runners up would be Felix from Sherry Thomas tLLiL and Leo from nQaH also by ST.
Yeah haha reading my list of favourite heroes I think I have a type. And did you know ST got the nQaH book idea from a film I think it’s called the painted Veil with Naomi Watts ,she was upset by the ending so she wrote her own version.
The Painted Veil is a really famous Somerset Maugham book. Is that what the movie’s based on?
Maybe I’ve never heard of that book before or film before ST mentioned it.
I think it’s safe to say Not Quite a Husband is inspired by The Painted Veil although the latter is a tragedy.
Yep she was definitely inspired by it but instead NQAH takes place in India instead of China. And the female character is a doctor not the male main character.Haha I remember now I was half asleep when I wrote that comment..
I’m a bit upset that ST doesn’t write Historical romance anymore .There is a rumour floating around that she wrote a HR set around WW1 and got rejected by the publisher,if she can self publish it herself maybe..
She has a cozy-ish mystery coming out this fall. The initial reports are… not great.
She is SO great in HR. Maybe she’ll come back!
Possibly I think I recall a interview of her years ago saying she wanted to write a series set around WW1 so maybe we might get that. The only thing is that type of romance isn’t in anymore fluffy, light romance is.
I certainly miss my yearly dose of Sherry Thomas as well as her friend and colleague Meredith Duran.
Me too.
The man in the Painted Veil is ultimately such a pathetic figure though, with just enough venom and malice that you don’t have much sympathy for him — you just think “what an awful waste.” It is certainly not a love story in the traditional sense. I would never have made that connection!
But, she does fall for him and he is revealed to be a better man than she thought which is very Leo.
Really? My read was that she never fell for him. She falls out of love with her affair partner, and sees him for what he is, but she never actually loves her husband, who literally brought her into the midst of a plague in the hopes that both of them would die.
I’m talking about the movie.
James is immature but I love his growth story.
Not sure why but second time reading I found he grated on my nerves might have been my mood maybe, not sure.
I just love how flawed he is and yet he’s always a really good guy.
I do miss that edge that historical romance used to have when a lot of authors weren’t afraid to push the boundaries a bit.
I miss it in any genre. Today I review a contemp that is 336 pages of mush. I find romance, just like life, to be dull when all the edges are filed away.
Agreed. As Ayesha says upthread, there’s been a retreat from writing ambiguous/ morally grey characters over the past decade or so. I can only read so much fluff.
Felix and Leo are also on a very long list of my favourite heroes. I absolutely adore them
I honestly like sweet boys John Eyre by Mimi Matthews, the hero of her novels “fair as a star” and “Winter Companion” and the one in “Marry in Haste” by MA Nichols this is a marriage of convenience where the heroine was very much in love from the start but the guy saw her only as a friend and although that irritated me in the end I realized that I was just too used to “he MUST fall first” but the hero was a perfectly lovable guy and it wasn’t his fault for not loving the heroine from the start I mean just as a woman doesn’t owe a man love because he loves her a guy doesn’t “owe” a woman love either so I calmed down and continued the journey.
I can’t stand indecision in a hero (not even in real life). If he starts feeling attracted to the heroine, I don’t want him to be confused about who to settle with later because Betty shows up. I simply can’t stand love triangles; they irritate me, neither in the heroine nor in the hero. Of course, on the other hand, these shy guys tend not to be as assertive and sometimes a bit insecure, I really can’t stand alphas, neither green flag (they make me angry) nor red flag (I want to kick them), even if they are decent guys.
Hero that got under my skin: I don’t want to spoil it by giving the name, but in a book I recently finished for an upcoming review, the hero ghosted the heroine rather than break up with her over internal issues he had with the relationship and didn’t discuss with her for even a nanosecond. When they reconnect, he finally talks to her about his hangup, and she forgives him, but I still had some resentment 🙂 Not recent, but the hero of 50 Shades of
ManipulationGrey was not my cuppa.Hero I loved: Brishen from The Wraith King series remains my number one recent hero. He’s a seasoned warrior and a decisive leader, but he’s also a kind and good man. As a lover, he’s attentive, a great listener, respects his partner, and cares for her.
Are you a fan of either type of hero: I’m not a fan of either type of hero because I look for couples rather than a great hero or heroine. Does the author convince me that these two would be terrific for each other? Does she pair a soft or savage hero with his right counterpart? The women’s fiction/romance hybrids that have taken over the contemporary genre often make this impossible to gauge. The focus is so much on her – her growth, her life, her friends, her relationships with her family – that reading a romance that concentrates on who they are as a couple is getting harder and harder to do because such books are harder to find. In some I’ve read the hero has practically been an accessory to complete the perfect ensemble that is her shiny career, fixed relationship with family (or complete breakaway for her mental health), super friends, and adorable pet.
Are you onto something or delusional: Onto something with a caveat. I may have my own delusions, but from what I’ve seen, genre fiction tends to be reflective and responsive to the market because it is a cash cow in the publisher’s mind. They loved Gone Girl? Give them a thousand more just like it! Harry Potter sells? Let’s make all YA fiction magical. Romance is, IMO, reflecting the extremes that are the hallmark of American culture. We’ve lost all sense of nuance or middle ground.
Romance is, IMO, reflecting the extremes that are the hallmark of American culture. We’ve lost all sense of nuance or middle ground.
THIS!
Possessive “me Tarzan, you Jane” chest-thumpers usually make me laugh because of the crap that comes out of their mouths – and I can’t stand them any more than I can stand the drip who can’t make his mind up what to have in a sandwich. For me a male lead needs to be competent, confident, self-aware and possess a degree of emotional intelligence that allows him to own up to it when he’s being a dick and then do something about it. I want some depth, flaws and complexity; Diem Krause from Nicky James’ Shadowy Solutions, Ashe’s Emery Hazard and John-Henry Somerset, Fisher and Church from Jay Hogan’s The Meaning of You, pretty much every male lead KJ Charles has ever written, Riley and Adam from The Shots You Take (Rachel Reid) – I could go on. They’re the rule rather than the exception in the books I read and review, and there definitely seems to be a wider variety of male lead personality types in m/m.
There are possessive leads and Golden Retriever leads in m/m, of course, but they don’t seem to be dominating the genre in the same way as you’re implying they are doing with m/f. (Of course, I can only read a small number of books in the genre, but I read a lot of book synopses when selecting what books to read and review from the fairly large number of author and publicist mailing lists I’m on, so I have a reasonable overview of what’s around.)
I don’t think you’re delusional, because romance has always been about the fantasy, and the lack of middle ground being exhibited now is not, I think, purely a figment of your imagination! I 100% agree with what Maggie says about romance reflecting (American) extremes – there is probably a reason many of my favourite romance authors – KJ Charles, Jay Hogan, Fearne Hill, H.L Day etc. – are not American!
My favorite heroes are disciplined, a little ruthless, pragmatic, guided by duty, incredibly smart/clever and a little bit different/alienated from the society in which they live — often because they are so very clever, they see the flaws in their culture. I like when they love the heroine against their will — because it’s a bad time, or because they’re inaccessible, or they’re antagonists, or something. But the force of their desire overwhelms them and they are forced to change up their goals/plans because of the love interest. They need to have a life mission that is not just the heroine.
So the hero in Shadow of the Moon or the Far Pavilions by M. M. Kaye really do it for me. Those are on the border of historical fiction, but they’re certainly romances too.
but I’d also put the hero in My Dearest Enemy and Bridal Favors by Connie Brockway in this camp.
On the flip side, I also like morally dissolute men who are redeemed by starchy women with unshakable values. In this trope, the dynamic is half-seduction, half transformation.
Ultimately though, it’s the dynamic between the characters that really makes it. In order for that dynamic to work, the heroine has to be something special, too.
Ultimately though, it’s the dynamic between the characters that really makes it. In order for that dynamic to work, the heroine has to be something special, too.
Totally this for me. The chemistry between the characters is what makes it work (or not)
Yes. AND it’s hard to have a viable dynamic if either lead is a caricature.
@Tster I am in complete agreement with you. Your examples name three of my all time favorite books – Far Pavilions, Shadow of the Moon and My Dearest Enemy. The character development (and the challenges these heroes face in their journeys) is compelling and complex. (And lengthy, gradual evolution – these are not novella heroes!). Thank you for your thoughtful comments- it’s fun to know I have a reading affinity based doppelgänger somewhere out there!
If I had to choose between the golden retriever hero and the mafioso, I’d opt for the golden retriever stereotype. However, I would rather not have to choose between stereotypes. I enjoy character-driven stories so I dislike romances in which stereotypes substitute for characterisation. I’ve just finished re-reading Nora Robert’s Bride Quartet series. I was going to use the four heroes as examples of non-stereotypical character development but, on reflection, I realise that they are stereotypical – the absent-minded professor, the commitment-wary man about town, the nurturer, and the graduate of the school of hard knocks. The stories work because they are not the usual over-used romance stereotypes and because the novels are rich in dialogue and description, which develop the characters beyond the stereotypes on which they are based.
I’m re-reading old favourites because too many recently published romances rely on a few tropes or cliches to build a thin veneer of personality in their protagonists. Science fiction stories used to be criticised for their lack of character development but recently, I think, this criticism could more justly be aimed at many romance novels.
Pretty much every romance nowadays has a list of tropes in the description or in the title – which can be very spoilery. I just read a book in which the author takes care not to reveal something about one of the leads until the halfway point – but which was ruined because the thing she’d worked hard to keep secret WAS MENTIONED IN THE SUBTITLE OF THE BOOK.
It seems romance novels have become check lists of tropes.
Yes, and there is a such a limited range of tropes and stereotypes! I struggle to find appealing stories among the plethora of romances featuring dukes, navy Seals, special forces operatives or motorbike toughs. These stereotypes, like the mafioso stereotype, are used as lazy shorthand for the powerful and flawed or wounded hero who is redeemed by love.
I wasn’t so much talking about the character-types – of which I suppose there is a limited number – but that every romance novel these days is reduced to a sum of its tropes – “a feel-good grumpy/sunshine only-one-bed second chance romance” etc. etc.
I do agree, though, with your point about lazy shorthand; some authors are able to breathe some fresh life and ideas into those stereotypes, but they’re becoming harder to find.
I like to read about people falling in love, ON the page. For this reason I’m not keen on second chance romances or books which begin with the characters already in love with each other but they just haven’t figures that out yet. I want to see the feelings grow and if the hero is immediately enchanted by (golden retriever) or obsessed with (mafioso) the heroine then it’s not that interesting to me. Back in the day I used to get annoyed when the characters had sex too early in the book; these days I’m disappointed when they know their feelings too early because the rest of the book is just the practicalities of merging their lives.
I can enjoy various kinds of heroes but I want to go on an emotional journey with them and feel them earn their HEA with a heroine who deserves them. Just knowing there is going to be a happy ending is enough certainty for me as a reader; I don’t need a fantasy guy who is too good or too bad to be true.
That’s a really good point–we know there’s going to be an HEA/HFN so having a hero who is–and we are in his head so often these days with all the first person narration–who’s already fallen lessens the plot of many romances.
I like second chance romances. The protagonists may have known each other before, and may have had a relationship in the past, but it is only now that they truly fall in love and we get to see them take part in an emotional journey where they learn about themselves and each other. Whether it was youth or circumstance or whatever in their past that caused the separation, watching them move beyond their mistakes and misunderstandings is romantic to me. What I don’t like is when the heroine has removed herself from Life and Love because she knew the hero was the “only one” for her. I want her to learn and grow, not remain frozen in a failed relationship, especially if he’s done the opposite.
I also like a good second chance romance for the reasons you mention but my preference is when it happens with a currently married couple ie a marriage in trouble or previously married couple.
Those are my catnip as well. BUT they only work if both characters have flaws. I just reviewed a couple, in a contemp, who are trying to get together after five years and they are both so perfect–as is everyone around them–that the book was just dull.
True. Well written, flawed characters are people I can root for. Perfect characters, not so much
I wonder if subconsciously we look for heroes that show characteristics we would like in a partner or reflect someone with whom we had a successful and happy relationship. Or do we just want our deepest fantasies to come to life on the page? I know that I tend to judge heroines on the basis of “I would really like to have lunch with you” and those whom I would never have affinity with are usually in a story that irritates me.
However, I have thought about heroes in romantic fiction that I have found particularly appealing though may not wanted to have a “relationship” with them. Mainly, sadly, HR. CR heroes can be excellent but I don’t often find my “soulmate” there.
So, Reggie Davenport in Mary Jo Putney’s The Rake and the Reformer. I liked him because he was in the nadir of his life and pretty disgusting but with love and care from Alys he does come about. The novel is controversial for some but I really loved it.
Miles Calverleigh (The Black Sheep) and Lord Damerel (Venetia) both by Georgette Heyer are two of my very favourite rakes and I have a real soft spot for rakes. My husband certainly wasn’t in that category but in my secret fantasies, I love Miles and Damerel. A lot.
Adam Kent, the Duke of Ridgeway, in Mary Balogh’s The Secret Pearl is also a favourite. Another story that has some serious critics who can’t abide by the early on rape. Well it’s interpreted that way. Still, the story leads to a love that is admirable, true and deep and I really liked Adam and Fleur. Things are not always what they seem.
Many of Carla Kelly’s heroes are lovely. Not quite golden retrievers but very kind, serious, lovely men. I always like them a lot.
Finally, Jamie Fraser. Nine novels in, a number of TV series, and I am still not tired of him. He really is fab and pushes a lot of my buttons. I first met him a long time ago and he can leave his boots under my metaphorical bed any time!!
For me, the hero is the stuff of fantasies, mostly, rather than what I long for in real life.
Same. A lot of the HR heroes I love, I’d never go near, in real life.
But that’s part of what makes our imaginations such a gift. We can dream and pretend and we are smart enough to see fantasy as something so fun to read/see, while all knowing that, in real life, we probably wouldn’t really enjoy hanging out with Superman.
Superman? Absolutely NOT! My current idea of anything that may be vaguely perceived in that category is Jack Reacher but I don’t think I would want to pursue him; maybe sleep with him a few times like the female characters in the books do. But, Superman? No way. Ever.
Personally, I think Reacher would suck in bed. He’s non-communicative, has never been married, and appears to believe a punch is better than a question…… 😉
I like Alex From Shadow Lover by Anne Stuart he’s probably considered a bit more of a villain as AS usually writes her ”heroes” are a bit like marmite you either love them or hate them.
Another “hero” I like as well is Ivan from When Angels Fall by Meagan mckinney.
I love many of them!
this article talks about something i’ve noticed in romance 2010s onward-there’s a rejection of ambiguity, and an embrace of tropes resulting in characters that feel like outlines barely drawn in. for a character to be compelling, there must be some sort of tension, and so much of that tension is glossed over now in favor of tropes. i’ve been on a sandra brown binge and just finished Slow Heat in Heaven, where the hero is a Vietnam war veteran who at one point says he should’ve raped the heroine when he had the chance. that scene was shocking, and many readers would argue, unnecessary, but it fits into the reality of the character and makes his eventual capitulation even more satisfying. there’s something transgressive about these older romance novels: the idea that a woman’s love is powerful enough to transform a man who is otherwise shown to be ruthless, brutal; the best of these stories are ones where both the male and female characters are changed by their relationship. of course, ambiguity and tension don’t have to be centered around dubcon/noncon, there are so many ways to show vulnerabilities and facets of a character. lorraine heath’s excellent When the Duke was Wicked is about male grief, and our standard trope of a rich wealthy rakish duke becomes a fully realized person instead of a sketch or an alpha male parody because of ms heath’s deeply emotional writing. the male lead of The Devil is a Marquess spends most of the first few chapters in a pitiful state, hungover, poor and even physically unattractive. the synergy between the leads and his subsequent change for the better illustrates what has made romance novels great and what newer ones tend to lack: character development for both leads, and a willingness to showcase characters who are flawed, who engage in ‘problematic’ behavior, but are not defined by it.
I see this a lot on TV now too. Dr. Feelgood and I watch tons of international mysteries and in many of them the good guys are also super flawed, sometimes even unlikeable. But, as the story goes, you see their perspectives, why they’re like they are, and you begin to see them as heroic, even as they are flawed.
We just finished the most recent season of Dark Winds–the lead, Joe Leaphorn, is struggling with something truly horrible that he did and the whole season is him and us, the viewers, slowly understanding the impact of that and by doing so, figuring out what it means for his heroic journey. It was so interesting–I’ll take nuance and flawed over perfect any day.
I’ve been reading a lot of fantasy romance lately (I dislike the booktok term ‘romantasy’), and I’ve realized I’m seriously drawn to shadow daddies. Google if you don’t know what it means but, in short, they’re ‘tall, dark and dangerous’, typically in a position of authority, often morally gray and are antagonistic to the heroine (or just apear to be), but grow very protective of her. They usually have the powers associated with the shadows or darkness. My favorite examples are Xaden from the Fourth Wing and Rhysand from ACOTAR. Rhys especially was clearly inspired by Daemon Sadi who seems to be the prototype for these shadow daddies (too bad Anne Bishop had to ruin his story with the sequels).
Others I liked are Luther from The Spark of Everflame, Kingfisher from Quicksilver, Rowin from Enchantra (some creative user of shadows there), Stark from Direbound (essentially Fourth Wing clone but I liked the vibes). I’m not sure what the HR or CR equivalent would be… a spymaster, assassin, special operator in the military?
Shadow daddies, huh? That’s a fun phrase.
I know right? Doesn’t necessarily mean age gap or… kink… although it could be in certain situations 😉
Shadow Daddies! That works so well! I haven’t heard that before but it sure fits the fantasies I’ve been reading, Silver Elite, Shield of Sparrows, Hurricane Wars and definitely Fourth Wing.
I’m not sure Shield of Sparrows qualifies other than maybe his demeanor?
I specifically searched for ‘shadow daddy’ recs on YT and Reddit and added a bunch to my TBR (a few were already there for years):
Hurricane Wars by Thea Guanzon (I was aware of its popularity but skipped it initially because I’m not a fan of Reylo fanfiction)
Rhapsodic (The Bargainer) by Laura Talassa
The Serpent and the WIngs of Night by Carissa Broadbent
Mortal Fates by J Bree
Flesh and Fire by Jennifer Armentrout
A Kiss of Iron by Clare Sager (Shadows of Tenebris series, apparently the characters are in their 30s which is always a bonus)
City of Gods and Monsters by Kayla Edwards
House of Beating Wings (Kingdom of Crows) by Olivia Wildenstein
Always Practice Safe Hex by Juliette Cross
Slaying the Shadow Prince by Helen Sheuerer
Rain of Shadows and Endings by Melissa K. Roerich
A Kingdom of Stars and Shadows by Holly Renee
Throne in the Dark by A.K. Caggiano
Until the World Falls Down by Jordan Lynde
Sworn to the Shadow God by Ruby Dixon
Threaded by Tay Rose
A Court of Blood and Bindings by Lisette Marshall
The Stars are Dying by Chloe Penaranda
I’ve noticed the shadow daddy books are often enemies (adversaries) to lovers or the hero is misunderstood because, you know, he’s so brooding and the FMC is often attracted to a ‘golden boy’ until she’s betrayed in some way and realizes it’s the shadow daddy all the way. I don’t know, maybe it’s a Darcy/Wickham dilemma in romantasy trappings?
Hero that got under my skin: Edward from Knight of the Jaded Heart by Margaux Thorne. His refusal to conform to any trope he thinks is stupid is enthralling. Georgiana is taken with chivalry and courtly manners. He thinks the aristocracy reenacting a medieval tournament is just a bunch of dandies playacting at being men. Next thing you know, he’s drunk, scaling a trellis in an attempt to recite poetry to Georgiana. Edward is petty (see: cricket match), rude, jealous, open-minded, brave, self-sacrificing, and a big old softy. I would call him an alpha in the bedroom, but he’s just so happy to be having sex with Georgiana that he can cede control. Reading about his vain attempts at chivalry to win over Georgiana was some of the most fun I’ve had reading a romance novel, ever.
Just added this to my TBR!
I didn’t love the second book (except the epilogue), but I just finished the third and it was FANTASTIC. I think I prefer Edward to Charles, but he’s a good egg. The heroine is the best part – she eats and exercises. The “villain” in book three is so hilariously disgusting. Two words: guinea pigs. Just started book four and it’s beginning with the male lead trying to chase an alpaca. There’s also some real Jafar, Abu and Iago energy coming from the Duke of Wembley’s sitting room. Auspicious start.