Brutes, Wimps and Heroes.
The alpha male, the beta male and the chivalric ideal.
“Thou wert the meekest man that ever ate in hall among ladies; and thou wert the sternest knight to thy mortal foe that ever put spear in the rest.”*
I’ve been wondering about the ‘alpha male’ recently and why I find him such an inadequate ideal for a hero. Several things have come together to spark off this post, one of which was finding the essay by CS Lewis on ‘The Necessity of Chivalry’ from which the Mallory quote above was taken. Another was watching an interesting TV programme on the BBC recently called ‘Last Man Standing’. Both of which seemed, to me, to contrast the alpha male with the chivalric ideal.
My understanding of the ‘alpha male’ is that an alpha male is a man who is completely without doubt as to his ability to handle a situation. He’s arrogant. He knows best – or at least, he believes he does. He is physically strong and doesn’t hesitate to use that physical strength to get what he wants. He is prepared to over-rule anyone who opposes him. He does not feel, let alone express, fear or weakness or admiration for others. He gets what he wants, and if he wants a heroine or beta male, that person had better learn to like it, because they are not going to get away.
The alpha male is ruthless. He is not riddled with guilt or doubt, and weakness in others attracts his contempt. He doesn’t give quarter. If you bank on his pity, you’ll be in for a nasty surprise.
In short, the alpha male is a barbarian. He’s like a Viking hero who, having captured a bishop and being unable to understand what the educated man is talking about, beats him to death and thinks he has won the argument. He’s like Achilles in The Iliad, for whom nothing matters but his own glory. Snubbed, he’s willing to sit by and watch his friends die because someone took away the captive he was going to rape and thereby proclaimed that they were more powerful than he was.
This is not the sort of man I want to have to deal with, either in writing or in real life.
But what does that leave me with in terms of my own heroes? Must my heroes be ‘beta males’?
Well, I have to say I don’t really understand what a beta male is. I presume, from the fact that you typically have an alpha/beta pairing, that the beta male is a man who doesn’t mind being constantly overruled, controlled and dominated by his alpha partner. As he fulfils the role of a heroine, perhaps he’s meant to be more emotional, less self-assured, maybe a little passive? Is he a bit of a pushover? Maybe inclined to cry and hope for someone to come along and solve all his problems? Is he, in short, something of a wimp?
I’m sorry, but are these really my only choices? Brute or wimp? I don’t want either. I’m – to quote the song – holding out for a hero.
So what exactly do I mean by that?
Well, what I’m looking for in a hero is the chivalric ideal. It’s not my own invention – it came into Western culture in the Middle Ages – and it is epitomised by the quote by Mallory up there. My hero is a man who is ferocious at need, who can be an alpha male if the situation requires it. A man who is the fiercest and most deadly warrior on the battlefield, accustomed to death and hardship, sure of himself, strong. A man who wins.
But – and this is the clincher – he’s also a man who can then come home, get cleaned up, and discuss the curtains with his maiden aunt. Who can weep over a sentimental film and be trusted to look after a child. A man who listens to others, respects the rights of the weak and is gentle with those who need help. He doesn’t boast or dominate. He is meek, and by his restraint he allows others to exercise their own power. He is both alpha and beta at once, depending on what the occasion requires.
But, you may say, Launcelot wasn’t real. No real man could fulfil such an ideal. It would be completely unbelievable.
At which point I drag out my copy of ‘Men of Honour’ by Adam Nicolson and direct your attention to the battle of Trafalgar. This is of particular relevance to me because the naval officers who fought at Trafalgar are the role-models, the real life examples from whom I’ve taken Peter and Josh in ‘Captain’s Surrender’ or John and Alfie from ‘False Colours’.
Nicolson describes Admiral Nelson thus:
Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar would not have occurred unless he had allowed and encouraged free rein to the less conscious forces of devastating aggression, the desire to excel, the desire for prizes, the desire to kill and the desire to win.
But this is what Admiral Collingwood, who was second-in-command of the British fleet says of Nelson:
There is nothing like him left for gallantry and conduct in battle. It was not a foolish passion for fighting for he was the most gentle of all human creatures and often lamented the cruel necessity of it, but it was a principle of duty which all men owed their country in defence of her laws and liberty.
Collingwood himself, who was at war most of his life, wrote long gossipy letters home to his sisters and was devastated at the death of his dog, Bounce.
The violence and overwhelming bloodshed of Trafalgar are well known, but what is less well known is that immediately following the battle, the British fleet did everything humanly possible to save the lives of the French, during the three day storm that broke over them all.
Violence and gentleness coexisting, switching from one to the other when needed. Proving, if you like, that the chivalric ideal is something which is very far from being unobtainable.
Indeed, it’s not even a phenomenon of the dim and vanished past. ‘Last Man Standing’, which takes six modern young men out to compete against the warriors of various different tribes at their own particular forms of sport/ritual combat, showed that the ideal was alive and well. I’m thinking particularly of Richard and Rajko, who – when forced to kill animals for food – mourned. They were self-effacing, they spoke of their doubts and hesitation rather than boasting about how inevitable it was that they would win, and they attacked the challenges with every bit as much aggression as the ‘alpha males’ on the show. Rajko’s stepping up to the mark in Trobriand, despite a half-severed toe, and taking his team to victory against all the odds was a ‘Chariots of Fire’ moment I’ll not soon forget. All the better for being real and not fiction.
So I have no hesitation in making John Cavendish from ‘False Colours’ the sort of person who would blush in real discomfort on hearing a dirty joke, and take on a dozen men with an axe in the next breath, nor in letting Alfie Donwell beat up the boatswain of a rival crew and weep inconsolably over a dead bird.
If this means that both of my heroes are alpha and beta males at the same time I can’t help but feel that not only is that historically accurate, but that it makes for an interesting dynamic. There should be a back and forth – and a potential for conflict – there that just doesn’t exist in a less equal relationship.
Plus, of course, they both get to be awesome, and they both get to be tender. Twice the value! They know, as Captain Anselm Jon Griffiths says in his ‘Observation on some Points of Seamanship’ published in 1809
The man who endeavours to carry all before him by mere dint of his authority and power would appear to me to know little indeed of human nature.
You tell it how it is, Captain! No one likes a smart-arse or a bully 😉
~
*Thomas Mallory; ‘Le Morte D’Arthur’. Sir Ector is describing Sir Launcelot.
June 27, 2008 at 10:46 am
Oh hear hear, Alex!
If there’s something frankly horrible about a lot of het romances (and I admit freely that I don’t read them, but do read a lot of the excerpts that swarm into my inbox daily) it’s the Alpha Male.
Perhaps the problem is that they are being written mainly from the woman’s point of view and she has no clue what’s actually going through his head. (It’s probably: Chips, Beer, woman!)
A real hero has to be, not only flawed, but to have his weak points. Perhaps it’s our (as Brits) a longing for the ethics of Play up, play up and play the game that we long for. Not a man who takes everything he thinks he’s entitled to, trampling all others in his wake, but a man who can be everything that Kipling outlined in “If.”
My lists of heroes in fiction (off the top of my head at least)
Lazarus Long (doesn’t hesitate to accept a kiss from a man as it’s part of that culture – is able to gossip and giggle – and fights only when he has to, even though he doesn’t believe in fighting fair)
Hornblower – simply because he’s a facade, terrified, sea-sick, unsure of himself but presents a completely different aspect.
As much as I love some Alphas (Sharpe, for one) they aren’t someone that I could live with for five minutes. I may have fantasies of being ravished – and I think that’s obviously where a lot of het romance Alphas come from – but after five minutes I’d be arguing and shouting “I’m going to, and YOU CAN’T STOP ME!”
*sigh*
June 27, 2008 at 10:59 am
I liked the article. 🙂 It seems to me a lot of what you’re talking about in it relates to gender stereotypes – the “alpha male” is a model of stereotypical masculinity, and the “beta male” is a mdoel of stereotypical femininity – and the heroes you’re talking about are real, rounded human beings. (Personally I’d love to see some female heroes who fit into the model you describe – not just in AoS, either.) What you’ve described isn’t just a model for a romance ‘hero’ – it’s a model for a decent person – rather than the half-person that society expects men and women respectively to be. It seems to me that people who want the alpha male as their romance hero are seeking a cardboard cut-out of a Masculine Man(TM), rather than the complexity of a real person.
/rant ;D
June 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Give me the hero, flawed, searching, unsure in many ways, yet unwavering in his duty, whether its to defend those he loves, or to show kindness to those less fortunate. The strength of the true hero is not physical, although he can be strong, but its in his moral fibre, his beliefs and his depth of love.
I’m not into cardboard cut-outs of “real men”, or someone’s staid ideal.
Too many times, in romance, we see cardboard men, “alpha” males, and frankly, they bore me. If he’s already a “winner” what has he got to struggle against to come out on top in the end?
Boring. Predictable. Ho hum.
Can a hero be Too Alpha To Live? (TATL)
June 27, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I have to admit that I don’t read m/f romance either, but I’ve read a lot of excerpts and a lot of blog posts on how to write the alpha male, what makes one, and ‘why we love him.’ I must admit that I dislike the stereotype for two reasons – one is that he’s a stereotype, and therefore will never be as interesting to read about as a fully rounded character. But the other is that I worry about women thinking that this kind of controlling, stalkerish behaviour is to be encouraged in real life. You know, it seems to me that if you marry someone who is all about himself and getting what he wants, then what results is more likely to be domestic abuse than a happy ever after.
I do admit I’ve come across quite a few authors saying that they don’t know what goes on in men’s heads. They’re writing them from observation and theory rather than fellow-feeling. It’s probably the result of accepting the idea of a the gender divide which makes it impossible for either sex to understand the other. I don’t buy into that at all. I think we’re all human first.
I do think there’s a definite cultural difference. It was one of the things I noticed on ‘Last Man Standing’. The three Brits were all fairly self effacing, the three American men were very much more ‘I’m going to win because I’m the best.’ One even said ‘I’m like Superman.’ In terms of actual results, it was a pretty even result, but the Americans were much more brash, much more ‘alpha’. I think there is a perception in the USA that British men are effeminate, precisely because they don’t boast, they don’t put themselves forward.
So it’s possible that some of my resistance to the idea of a boastful, chest thumping male is cultural and that an American woman would find the men I admire to be too effeminate for her liking. But as that still leaves me with the men who can hold a conversation and cook dinner when I’m tired, I still think I come out ahead 😉
June 27, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Oh and yes, this
I just imagine how horrible it would be if he could and did stop me. You’ve married the alpha male, suddenly your life is not your own and you will never be free again. *Shiver*. Scary!
June 27, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Thanks, Snakey! And yes, I think that’s it exactly. You don’t demand perfection, but you want your heroes (or protagonists) to be the kind of fully rounded people you can believe in and love. That’s part of why I love Jack Aubrey. His total competence at sea is made lovable by his helplessness ashore, and his wish to be liked, and his boyish delight in bad puns. Not to mention his tolerance for his appalling mother in law!
June 27, 2008 at 3:57 pm
LOL! TATL? He certainly can as far as I’m concerned. There are quite a few alpha heroes who make me want to reach for my machine gun – because I know that’s the only thing that would get through to them.
I do wonder, though, whether the hero is so alpha not in order to give *him* a challenge through the story, but in order to provide a bigger challenge for the heroine/heroine substitute male? IE, the HSM has to ‘tame’ the alpha male and domesticate him by the end of the story? That way, the more of a jerk the alpha male is, the more of a triumph it is for the heroine/HSM?
I can’t personally see why you would *want* to tame someone who was a massive jerk, mind you 🙂
June 27, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Mad props to you for recognizing that Mallory (and other authors of his era and persuasion) saw three-dimensional, compelling characters more clearly than many writers (of both book and screen) today. Great post.
June 27, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Thanks, Amy! And yes, I’m a big believer in the fact that the thinkers, writers and artists of the past were just as likely to know about human nature as we are today. I think the modern tendency to think that we know better than all those old fossils in the dark ages is seriously blinkered.
Apart from ‘Men of Honour’ which I can’t recommend enough, The Battle of Maldon is one of my keynote texts on heroism, I think. The glorious, heart-stirring honourable defeat, and then the woman saying ‘yes, but what about those of us who have to live with the result? There’s such a thing as caring about your own glory too much in the face of your responsibility for others, you know.’ I’m not sure I know of anything more modern which has done that better.
June 27, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I have to disagree with you – firstly about your portrait of what makes for an Alpha Male.
Your discription is heavily loaded with a negative interpretation of qualities, which if unbalanced could indeed lead to a barbarian. But frankly, a discontented Beta Male could just as easily behave in the brutish manner you ascribe to the Alpha.
In Real Life, those gentlemen who know that I would categorize as Alpha Males, are those who have natural leadership qualities. They are men who move into situations with an assurance that they will be able to cope, which is different than being arrogant about it. Those with good manners do not presume they will have center stage, but everyone around them remains conscious of them, and stops and listens when they do speak.
Betas are natural followers, and I don’t necessarily ascribe whimpishness to them. Leaders do need followers who can put plans into action, carry out jobs, work in concert with others.
Both can be either barbarians or chivalrous knights. But a code of honor or chivalry is outside the matter of whether the person holding to the code is Alpha or Beta. It is not inherent in either, nor the providence more of one than the other.
June 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Gah… missed a word! “Those gentlemen who I know that I would categorize….”
That’s what it’s supposed to say! *sigh*
June 27, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Hi Sarah! Thanks for commenting 🙂 And yes, I freely admit that I’m not using the terms in positive ways. Partly that’s because in most of the romances I’ve read which had self-confessed ‘alphas’ those men really were troublingly blase about the rights of other people to say ‘no’ to them.
I think that if the terms are softened to mean ‘someone who is a natural leader’ and ‘someone who is a natural follower’ then I wouldn’t have the kind of knee-jerk reaction that I do have to them. I do agree that there is such a division among people. There are also ‘people who prefer to be outside the power structure altogether’ – that’s me 🙂
But I’m just not 100% sure that the terms are used in that way in romance novels, though!
John, for example, out of my two characters, is the natural leader. If there’s a crisis, he takes charge, but the rest of the time people dismiss him as a nervous, prudish virgin. If I tried to represent my shy, socially awkward, slight, blond, sexually inexperienced, tea-drinking young man as an alpha hero, I’m pretty certain that most people would disagree with me.
June 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Alex, I agree about having a romantic ideal and living with it, are two different things.
I remember in my youth (the late pleistocene) when I dated many hot-blooded alpha men, my grandmother would say, “they’re lovely to play with, dear, but don’t marry one.”
And they were lovely, arrogant, possessive, me tarzan, you jane, sort of men and it made for some wild times, but even I could see being married to one of them would not work. I was far too independent…
And I’m not sure that movies and tv haven’t stereotyped Brits as more effeminate, because unless you’re talking James Bond, or some knight of old, what we (Americans) see of British men may lead us that way…just because we’re limited as to what we see.
And I agree it’s American culture for men to be the chest thumping, high-five, aggressive, gonna win at all costs. Which is fine if you’re in college or competing on some tv survival show, but in real life, its irritating.
There are many jerks in books today, and I frequently find myself flinging books due to some heroine’s acceptance of her alpha male’s boorish behavior.
June 27, 2008 at 6:36 pm
*g* I can see it working as the female version of ‘men don’t marry *that* kind of girl’ – women don’t marry that kind of boy 🙂 But I think your grandmother was very wise. Unless what you really want is someone to take all the decisions of your life for you, then you don’t want to end up in harness with someone who thinks they don’t need to listen to what you say. Of course, I dare say that some women might want to trust all their life decisions to their husband. But I find that thought very scary 🙂
And I’m not sure that movies and tv haven’t stereotyped Brits as more effeminate, because unless you’re talking James Bond, or some knight of old, what we (Americans) see of British men may lead us that way…just because we’re limited as to what we see.
I think there is a definite difference in perception due to what is socially acceptable behaviour. To take Jack Davenport, for example (the guy who played Commodore Norrington in Pirates of the Caribbean), a lot of his American fans seem to think that he has self-esteem problems because he runs himself down in interviews.
Here in Britain, however, running yourself down is the only socially acceptable response to praise. So when I see him say something like ‘heh, thanks, but Johnny looked like a sex god and I look like the emperor of ice cream’, I don’t see self-esteem problems, I see a person who is modest, clever, witty and thoroughly in control of the interview.
We come away with completely different impressions of the man because of the different ways our cultures structure masculinity.
So I can see that a woman who was used to a more assertive style would be more accepting of – and even enjoy – expressions of self-confidence which to me would sound like boasting. But having said that, I agree with you that a jerk is still a jerk. It’s not so much what they say about themselves that counts as the way they treat other people.
The ‘alpha male’ of romance, as I’ve seen him, tends to treat the heroine/HSM as if they belong to him by some kind of god given right, and I can’t be having with that!
June 27, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I think that many readers (and reviewers) expect the “hero” to be an alpha and don’t know how to deal with a character who they believe *should* be alpha if he *wins* the heroine. For me, writing my first m/m story was *freeing*. I felt that the artificial pigeon holes of alpha male/beta female were gone. My guys could act and react as the situation warrented – and damn the alpha label.
Great post and comments, folks.
June 27, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Great post, Alex–although I was expecting something more “controversial.” *grin* Can’t say I found much to disagree with. 😀
One aspect you mentioned that I think is more complex than you represented:
I think this is a theme throughout literature, that the “alpha male,” or “hero,” or whatever we want to call him becomes a tragic figure precisely because he is too alpha. He’s arrogant when he should be self-assured or confident; he’s overly quick to take offense when he should be above petty insults or attempts to “rile” him. He’s so used to keeping up the facade of invincible warrior that he loses his humanity.
Achilles’ “sulking in his tent,” is, to me, the whole dramatic point of The Iliad. Because of his bad behavior, his ultimate alpha male idiocy, he loses his beloved Patroclus, the man who is dearest to him, who means more to him than life itself. Before Patroclus’ death, Achilles was willing to “play it safe,” to fight sensibly and try to survive the war to live to a ripe old age. Once he loses his reason for living, he avenges Patroclus’ death, knowing he has chosen instead the short life of glory. He makes the “heroic” choice of the glorious death–but only out of overwhelming loss.
On a far smaller stage, in Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy can be seen as a kind of alpha male. Here, the action of humbling him is done by a woman, the heroine, Elizabeth Bennet. Darcy says to her, after they are engaged, “By you I was properly humbled.” Because this is a romantic comedy (of sorts) the humbling doesn’t lead to tragedy but to the possibility of a happy ending, a marriage between equals.
(And, to be fair to m/f romances, I can’t say I read many but I read some, and I don’t think the fantasy of being ravished by an alpha male–or being ravished at all–is being written these days. It no longer speaks, if it ever did, to women readers’ fantasies, and if such a story line is presented, it’s usually ironic and the heroine is more than a match–physically or intellectually, or both–for the man.) 🙂
June 27, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Had to make this a separate comment. About the differences between American and British men, and ideals of masculinity: speaking as an American, I can say most definitely that most Americans haven’t a clue about this cultural divide. The only reason I can claim a slight degree of understanding is because I’ve read enough English literature, and seen enough well-made movies and TV shows to at least be aware that there is this difference.
Also, most Americans don’t know anything about class distinctions. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but from over here it looks like there are still a lot of class markers, from speaking voice (“accent”) to ways of presenting oneself, that are clear to Brits but are lost on Americans. Most people I know see all Brits as “upper class snobs,” based on some stereotype derived from ? (not sure) old movies or maybe just a kind of handed-down folk history left over from the Revolution.
As Alex said in an earlier comment:
Exactly. This is something Americans don’t get at all. What confuses me is how most of my fellow Americans manage to contain these two conflicting stereotypes of Brits in their minds simultaneously–the snob and the wimp–without their brains’ exploding! 😉
June 28, 2008 at 1:53 am
Hey, Alex. Thought-provoking post. I personally think that — when applied to writing — “Alpha,” “Beta,” and “Omega” are more or less terms of convenience rather than genuine character types. Well — and we would all rather write fully rounded characters than types, anyway!
I wonder if the Beta you describe is actually more of an Omega — you don’t see the Omega as a protagonist or serious love interest outside of M/M romance. Unfortunately there are way too many Omegas in M/M romance (for my taste).
I view Betas as a successful integration of Alpha and Omega — in those old het romances, he was always the nice guy the heroine got engaged to when the Alpha hero was being a asshole. They were often quite successful, handsome, intelligent guys but they didn’t quite have the type A personality that was apparently formerly desired in a heterosexual romance.
As I understand it (I don’t read heterosexual romance, so I don’t know this for a fact), the contemporary Alpha is a more sensitive version of the traditional domineering Alpha. Meaning, I guess, that enough women got fed up with these ludicrous stereotypes and let the publishers know they were more interested in reading about (somewhat) more realistic men.
The most Alpha male I write is Jake Riordan, and even he has a nurturing streak and is a good cook. *g* So, again, I think the terms are best used as convenience for discussion rather than legitimate character molds. Anyone rigidly writing characters to type…er…well, let’s just say they’re writing something I wouldn’t be interested in reading.
June 28, 2008 at 6:12 am
Here is another article that I think deserves to be widely available, in magazines and such. In fact, there are several such articles on this blog. This is an excellent blog!
I also find alpha males unappealing and I no longer read het romances of the category type (and I don’t find the heroines any more appealing than the heroes).
Ever since I was a little kid, the guys I’ve crushed on in books have been the gentle, personable, intellectual souls. Holmes and Watson, Peter Wimsey and Bunter, Bunny (not so much Raffles), Peter Dobbs in the Margaret Sutton mysteries. Actors I’ve loved have been the same- Roddy McDowall, Derek Jacobi, Alan Rickman…Brit guys being way sexier than Americans, in that regard. I guess they have a vulnerable quality that appeals to me.
An alpha-type actor like George Clooney, who seems to have a sense of humor and can make fun of himself, is salvageable *g* but I don’t find those types of alphas in het romances, for the most part. It’s a mystery to me that women find the alpha male appealing; maybe it comes down to biology–wanting to procreate with the leader of the pack. *eg* But I don’t tend to identify with the heroines in most het romance novels, either–so I can’t imagine myself in her place, falling for the a**hole she’s finding attractive.
I just prefer the more interesting, more equal relationships in unconventional het romances or m/m romances. They’re also usually a LOT more believable, too.
June 28, 2008 at 9:51 am
Thanks Jeanne! And I agree that one of the nice things about m/m fiction is that that you aren’t saddled with the expectation that there’s going to be this big unequal power dynamic, as you are with m/f. I do find, though that a lot of the m/m books I’ve read seemed to transfer the ‘masculine one/feminine one’ dynamic straight over to m/m and make their men fit it. That strikes me as a bit of a shame. Also, it strikes me as a shame that more m/f is not written with equal relationships in mind. These days, after all, women can have just as much education and social power as men. I wonder why no one writes the alpha female/beta male dynamic?
June 28, 2008 at 10:18 am
Thanks for the comment, Ann! That’s very interesting 🙂 But do you think that Achilles’ going out in a blaze of glory is seen as a tragedy? I’ve always thought it was meant to be seen as a triumph – that his passivity and sulking was a shameful thing because it was a lapse into emotional femininity Patroclus saves him from this by getting killed, enabling him to get back his male honour when he starts fighting again.
But I freely admit that it’s been a long time since I read the Iliad, so I don’t dare debate that one any more thoroughly!
I had never considered Mr.Darcy an alpha male, chiefly because he was willing to listen to criticism and to act on it. But having said that, I see what you mean. He does assume he has the right to make important life decisions for his friends. Heh, can you sense me trying to fit a character I feel I know as a person into a category by trying to turn him around and lop off bits to see if he’ll fit? Darcy makes sense to me as a person, but I’ve never thought of him in connection with the idea of an alpha male before. I guess I’m resistant to the idea of putting him into a category because I feel he’ll lose something in the process.
I think you’ve been more fortunate than me in what you run across, in that case 🙂 Not that I’ve got anything against the rape fantasy as a fantasy (as long as no one brings it near me.) We’re none of us responsible for what floats our boat 😉 I suppose it’s more the concept of someone who thinks he knows best for everyone else in the world and is going to take charge of giving it to them whether they like it or not, which gets my goat.
June 28, 2008 at 10:29 am
I wonder why no one writes the alpha female/beta male dynamic?
Oh they do, Alex. But that’s an entirely different Genre!!
;D
June 28, 2008 at 10:47 am
Oh yes, class distinctions are still huge over here. I remember buying an American m/m romance where a high flying executive fell in love with a construction worker, and I was baffled to find that that caused no problems or conflict whatsoever. Here there would be resistance to the match from both sides, and from within the couple themselves ‘for crying out loud, do you have to be so vulgar?”what, you think you’re better than me?’
*g* ‘The Boys of Summer’ which is the next thing I have planned will be a cross class romance. I guess I’ll have to work extra hard at getting the idea across 🙂
June 28, 2008 at 11:11 am
Yay! Thanks for commenting, Josh! And yes, as a convenient way of saying “oh, my character x is a very manly man in the ‘me Tarzan, you Jane’ sort of mold” then ‘alpha male’ is a useful label. I suppose I shouldn’t even complain that so many people like him. There’s no accounting for taste, after all 😉
If everyone was striving to write fully-rounded characters who could be appreciated as people rather than types, then I don’t think I’d have the same angry reaction.
Oh yes, you may be right, as my sample selection of books are the m/m ones I’ve read myself. I think of him as a ‘heroine substitute’, though I don’t actually know any women who are that wussy either 😉
Ah, those would be the lads I’d be rooting for, the ones I was always baffled to find the heroine was not supposed to like. Why don’t nice guys get the girl/boy? They bloody well ought to! I suppose I do feel a sense of grievance against the things that perpetrate the idea that the Type A, as you call him, is more attractive. Goodness knows how many successful relationships have been wrecked by that bit of stupid advice 😉
Yes, I can’t really speak for heterosexual romance as I don’t read it either. I do know that Jamie Fraser from the Outlander series, who is hugely popular, is still not beta enough for me, though.
I think the perception is that the beta guy will lose in a straight fight, so perhaps you need to learn to like the alpha because you’re going to end up with him anyway. But that’s a little animalistic for my liking.
I like Jake, but I think I’m rooting for him because I see he *could* get his act together. He could go either way. His more alpha tendencies are part of what makes him such a jerk, and part of the reason why I feel sorry for him. They’re ruining his life. Which makes for a refreshing change, I think 😀
*g* I can definitely get behind all of that 🙂
June 28, 2008 at 11:56 am
Yay! Thank you, Mara 🙂 And thank you on behalf of the other writers on the blog. LOL! I think you can definitely say of us that we are not short on opinions ;D
Yes, that’s very true. I suppose you have to be a woman who wants all her problems to be solved by someone else, if you are going to fall for the alpha male at all. But that does tend to lead to heroines that I can’t connect with. I think – I’m not a reader of m/f romance, so this is only my impression from excerpts – that the modern heroine tends to be more outwardly combative and mouthy than her 1950s counterpart, but the ‘they’re always fighting so they must love each other’ trope is also one I find very unsympathetic.
I’m completely with you there. Holmes with his ruthless mind is admirable, but you’d marry Watson for his decency, bravery and kindness. You couldn’t live with most alpha heroes – great in an adventure, intolerable over the breakfast table 🙂 I suppose I really do want a hero who could hold an interesting conversation – like Jack Aubrey who prides himself on being able to give a good dinner party. There is so much more to life than sex and power, and I think the ‘alpha male’ stereotype misses that out.
All I can say to all of that is ‘yep’ 🙂 As I was saying to Josh, maybe there’s an element of learning to accept the inevitable. If you’re in a situation where you’re going to end up with whichever of the enemy tribe’s warriors has managed to capture you, you have to learn to like a bit of brutal behaviour. But human society has moved on a bit since then, thank God!
Yes, that may be because if you’re being unconventional you have to put more thought into your characterization. One of the things I look for most in a novel is interesting characters, and being presented with a stereotype instead is always going to be disappointing.
June 28, 2008 at 12:04 pm
The only het romance I’ve ever written was Galadriel/Celeborn fanfiction, in which she’s the powerful, ambitious one, and he’s the one who has to work out how he can manage to fit that into his life without losing anything important to him. Heh, and it was cross-cultural + cross-racial as well. I suppose I just don’t like anything that’s too simple 😉
June 28, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Oh yes, you may be right, as my sample selection of books are the m/m ones I’ve read myself. I think of him as a ‘heroine substitute’, though I don’t actually know any women who are that wussy either
My God, if this isn’t the truth! I don’t think I know any women as sappy and helpless as some of the useless M/M characters I’ve read. I’m utterly bewildered as to why anyone would find a cry baby wimp attractive? Granted, romance is not real life, but the best romance is at least grounded in realistic possibilities. And realistically…helplessness is not attractive.
June 28, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The problem with being the heroine is either living up to or living down all the ones that have gone before in romance.
I also don’t read a lot of m/f romance – can’t decide if it’s the hero or the heroine or the plots, but let’s not get into THAT – that irritate me into book-flinging. For me, a TSTL (too stupid to live)heroine is almost the rule, not the exception. And nothing is more unattractive than a whiner (Kate Capshaw in the middle Indy Jones movie – I wanted to slap her) or a cry baby (what Tammy Faye did for waterproof mascara was the only good thing about all those fake tears)
Okay,I’ll give in a little if I’m reading historicals, because of the times and a woman’s role in society was so rigid, but that’s about all the patience I have with weak heroines being told to marry or submitting to their families demands only to win over their man thru their steadfast love and good behavior, blah blah blah.
Give me the smart, fast talking, wise-cracking female, (can you not think of Kate Hepburn, a young Barbara Stanwick, or even Mae West?) who knows what she wants -even if it’s a man who doesn’t know what he wants – and goes after it with a single minded determination worthy of the most alpha male. No matter what time period she lives in.(She may indeed be alpha, but she’s all woman)
As for beta males, in most of my m/m stories I try to write men who could be heroes in their own right – or in my next book *g* – hopefully, my central heroes are fully rounded people, who have to fight for their HEA, despite their fears, self-doubts and flaws, and win the day.
You find these sorts of heroes much more in British or British influenced writing, than American. Except for maybe the cowboys – they have their own codes of honor, chivalry, and morals, and are rarely typical alphas. (of course, those leather chaps, worn jeans and scuffed boots help. *sigh*
But no matter if its m/m or m/f, I want to see the journey, the character arc, from the beginnig of the book to the end. It’s what makes you cheer for them and hope like hell they find their HEA.
June 28, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Great comments going!
Until recently, my stories were all m/f with some secondary m/m relationships. I’ll continue to write these stories, also, but I’m also focusing on the intricacies of relationships – m/f/m, m/m/f – life is too complicated for just one type of sexual relationship.
I’ll read any story that sounds interesting no matter the sexual orientation or tastes of the MCs.
I totally agree with Lynn’s final paragraph. If your characters remain the same with no growth or change, there is no journey.
June 28, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Alex said:
Ah, this is from me having spent what feels like the last century or two living with Pride and Prejudice, working on my novel. I relate every discussion, no matter how off-topic, to Jane Austen’s world 🙂 But yes, I do think Mr. Darcy is as close to an alpha male as you’ll see in her world. He’s not very close (that “willing to listen to criticism” bit tends to rule him out, not to mention his high level of intelligence)–just the closest she’ll get while allowing him to be the hero. I think she loathed alpha males as much as we do.
That said, I do think Austen was having fun with the concept in this book, seeing how far she could go with an unlikable hero while ultimately reclaiming him from the Dark Side. The only “heroic” acts in her books are all sensible, humane ones, so it’s sort of a contradiction in terms to be relating them to typical alpha male accomplishments like leadership in battle. But the “heroic” acts that do occur in P&P are Darcy’s: specifically, saving the heroine’s sister from ruin by forcing the man she ran off with to marry her. By this time in the story, Darcy has been “humbled,” so he does not want public acknowledgment of his heroism. That is, he’s no longer an alpha male but a decent human being, with just a smidgen of remaining pride that the heroine can control in their marriage 😉
And of course, the relationship between Darcy and his friend Charles Bingley is a perfect example of that alpha male-beta male dynamic. (Capsule review of my upcoming novel) 😀
I also think that the 18th century in general was when the whole concept of the alpha male began to be reevaluated, perfectly embodied in the figure of
Nelson, as you discuss. Do you think it’s partly due to the rise of the middle classes (like Nelson’s background), forcing everybody to rethink traditional values and what was considered acceptable behavior in the personal sphere?
June 28, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Sorry, I seem to have two threads going here.
Alex said:
Yes, you’re absolutely right in the terms of the original poem.
My interpretation is from reading the Iliad more the way the Greeks of the sixth or fifth centuries BC did. They were far more interested in the homoerotic aspects of the story than the detailed cinematic descriptions of gory battle scenes (“spears in eyeballs”) that were so popular in the poem’s original, preliterate period. (I sometimes think of that fifth-century crowd as the original “slash fiction” audience ;)–they demanded homoerotic content in their literature, which is why there were plays like Aeschylus’ The Myrmidons that (probably–only fragments survive) put explicit sexual references into a story that did not originally contain them.
So…I think the Iliad as it’s “written” is a heroic epic, not a tragedy. But I think the more sophisticated audience of the classical period saw that Achilles’ heroism comes, not from a simple desire to do great deeds, or not solely from that, as an uncomplicated alpha male would be motivated, but from a tragedy. And what makes it “tragic,” not just “sad,” is that he is considered a great man and this loss, the death of his friend, is brought about by his own damn-fool selfish behavior–and he recognizes that fact, on some level at least. He evolves, if only marginally, from an out-and-out alpha male badass into a slightly aware alpha male not-quite-so-badass 😉
Of course, none of this changes the fact that I wouldn’t dream of inviting him to breakfast or within five miles of my house 🙂
June 29, 2008 at 4:04 am
Brava!
Much of your description reminds me of one of Heinlein’s quotes–which I don’t have handy–to the effect that a human being should be able to give orders, take orders, cook, fight, build a house, deliver a baby, comfort the dying, etc — that specialization is for insects. I think what I dislike about alpha males is not so much that most of them are arrogant, inconsiderate gits–it’s the notion that any Womanly Woman is going to swoon at their masculinely-shod feet. P’tui!
Not understanding why women would do that, I’m doubly puzzled why anybody would do the wimpy femme routine to the ‘beta’ men in m/m romances. (Have to admit I only read one, not badly written, it got excellent reviews–and it was emotionally so dreary I was barely willing to finish it.) As Josh said, why in the world would someone (anyone, male or female!) want a partner who is essentially a permanent child, unable to make the slightest decision without the “alpha’s” approval? (I’m sure I’m oversimplifying the dom/sub relationship; please don’t anyone give me a lecture because IMO the only thing more tedious than having someone tell me what to do-wear-eat etc. would be to be the person having to make all those decisions for someone else. Aieee… I know about the Greek tradition and all that, but those relationships ended when the younger man was able to grow a respectable beard–they weren’t meant to be happy-ever-after.
I do think there’s a cultural difference between the US/UK – though I was brought up with the notion that bragging was for people who had no self-confidence, and a bit of self-deprecation was much more … maybe sophisticated is the word .. than a bunch of chest-thumping (also makes you look less of a fool when the inevitable misstep occurs). I think that popular entertainment (especially those godawful unreality shows) tend to dumb down the audience to the point where ‘high-concept’ and character stereotypes are the norm, not the wretched exception. Fie on them–I want more interesting, complex, chivalric heroes of both sexes!
And speaking of annoying stereotypes, if there’s anything I like less than ‘alpha males…’ Any chance you’re going to take on “bad boys?” (G)
June 29, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I suspect that the wimp is there in order to make the alpha character more attractive, not for his own sake. Who knows, maybe there are a lot of women who *feel* completely helpless, and therefore identify with the helpless character + wish someone wonderful would come along, reassure them that they’re wonderful and solve all their problems. Since it’s wish fulfillment it doesn’t need to be realistic. It probably doesn’t even need too much conflict or suspense – which explains those romances where nothing more difficult happens than choosing curtains 😉
June 29, 2008 at 12:41 pm
nothing is more unattractive than a whiner (Kate Capshaw in the middle Indy Jones movie – I wanted to slap her) or a cry baby (what Tammy Faye did for waterproof mascara was the only good thing about all those fake tears)
I agree completely about whiners! I think that tears can be ok providing they’re earned. Jack Aubrey from the Master and Commander books, for example, dissolves into tears of homesickness after getting a letter from his wife, but he’s earned his tendency to weep by being so bad ass elsewhere (also it was more socially acceptable in those days for men to cry.) But as a first resort they’re a no-no unless they result in the character then deciding to do something about whatever it is.
,I’ll give in a little if I’m reading historicals, because of the times and a woman’s role in society was so rigid, but that’s about all the patience I have with weak heroines being told to marry or submitting to their families demands only to win over their man thru their steadfast love and good behavior, blah blah blah.
I’m not sure if passive/weak heroines are realistic even in historicals. In Fielding’s ‘Tom Jones’ (published in 1749) the heroine reacted to her arranged marriage by sneaking out of the house and embarking on a wild road trip to get out of it. So if the ideal woman in 1749 did not passively accept her fate, goodness knows why she should in a book written in 2008!
As for beta males, in most of my m/m stories I try to write men who could be heroes in their own right – or in my next book *g* – hopefully, my central heroes are fully rounded people, who have to fight for their HEA, despite their fears, self-doubts and flaws, and win the day.
Exactly 🙂 I tend to think of myself as a bit of a matchmaker for my characters. For both of them I want someone who has strengths and weaknesses which compliment each other, so that they will be stronger and happier together than apart. Peter’s blase self-confidence is good for Josh, who tends to brood over his unworthiness, while Josh’s careful observation of people is good for Peter who only sees what he wants to see. Etc! But at the same time, both of them have to be fully able to function apart – or they would have died long before they met 😉
June 29, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Until recently, my stories were all m/f with some secondary m/m relationships. I’ll continue to write these stories, also, but I’m also focusing on the intricacies of relationships – m/f/m, m/m/f – life is too complicated for just one type of sexual relationship.
I’ll read any story that sounds interesting no matter the sexual orientation or tastes of the MCs.
I totally agree with Lynn’s final paragraph. If your characters remain the same with no growth or change, there is no journey.
I’m guessing that the formulaic novels cater to people’s desire to have more of the thing that they enjoyed. If you like milk chocolate that doesn’t necessarily mean you want to try chocolate-and-nuts, let alone turkish delight 🙂 So I have no problem with some people liking m/f but not m/m, or liking Cowboys but not plumbers. Or even with people liking alpha males. As long as there’s enough of the other kind of stuff around for my liking. The stuff that – as you say – has character complexity, change and growth.
June 29, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I also think that the 18th century in general was when the whole concept of the alpha male began to be reevaluated, perfectly embodied in the figure of
Nelson, as you discuss. Do you think it’s partly due to the rise of the middle classes (like Nelson’s background), forcing everybody to rethink traditional values and what was considered acceptable behavior in the personal sphere?
I don’t think I have an answer to this one, mainly because I don’t think anyone had heard of the concept of an ‘alpha male’ before the existence of nature documentaries about wolves.
If you mean that the 18th Century was when the concept of ‘the hero’ was re-evaluated, I’d probably say that each generation and each culture has its own ever changing perception of what a ‘hero’ should be. Frodo is very different from Dirty Harry, for example 🙂
One of the interesting contrasts ‘Men of Honour’ draws is between the concept of ‘the Homeric hero’ and ‘the Virgillian hero’. Homer’s heroes in general are all about martial prowess and destruction. Virgil’s hero carries his elderly father on his shoulders and triumphs by establishing a civilization – creating rather than destroying. Nicolson shows that both concepts inspire the action in Trafalgar – both the desire for overwhelming violence and the end of the world *and* the desire for that violence to result in a safer, more humane and admirable world.
I don’t think that the humanity and sense that the hero should be able to fit into society and do it good was a new one in the 18th Century. It must be at least as old as Virgil 🙂
June 29, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Excellent article, Alex, and there are so many good points to it that I don’t even know where to start.
I never quite “got” the attraction of men who drag their hands on the ground. In stories I appreciate the strengths of characters, but just as much their weaknesses. How will they overcome them? Or will they not? That’s part of good story telling.
To me a hero is not an alpha male. There’s so much more intelligence and self-searching involved than just “must go kill, har har har”. Overcoming fear, for example, checking all options, finding the best way, not the fastest.
Thanks a lot for bringing up Collingwood in this context. Today he’d probably be classified as a “pedantic control freak”; no doubt he drove many of his officers crazy. He loved gossip and had a sharp tongue; his quill at times dripped acid as we know from his letters. Not very “manly” by most people’s standards.
Yet, at the same time, he lived through all those battles, never losing his head (literally!), but he also never lost his humanity. And that, together with the ability to feel compassion, is something a hero needs and most alpha males lack. It’s very likely the main reason why I’m put off by them and consider Collingwood a classic example of a true hero. But then again, I’m biased… 😉
June 29, 2008 at 3:29 pm
So the hero type evolves as the culture(s) change, grow, evolve. What the culture needs at any particular time, is reflected in the aspects of the hero appearing in our writing.
I once read about how as our military fears from the 20’s thru the 90’s changed, so did the types of horror movies.
With the world wars came great horror classics – Dracula, Mummy, etc. dealing with the occult. Then in the 50’s with the advent of the cold war and ideas of hidden pockets of commies poise to overthrow the u.s.ofa. the movies changed to Body Snatchers, and things from outer space.
These days, slasher films, helpless teens, and home invasions rule the screens.
So, the version of the hero changes – Frodo is not Braveheart, and Bruce Willis’s Die Hard hero is almost the equivalent of an americanized English hero – he doesn’t go looking for trouble, but he can handle it when it finds him.
Another great southern quote from my grandmother, an amazing woman in her own right – “Ladies don’t start fights, but they can finish them.”
The second male hero in m/m or the f/m’s heroine must be competent and self-sufficient a person in their own right- indeed the part that fills what’s missing in the other, as Josh said.
Hey, if we’re going to talk about bad boys at some point, can we talk about secret babies? Argggghh!
June 29, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Okay, there does seem to be some misconception about the type of heroine in m/f books of today.
Most books do not offer wimpy heroines waiting around to be rescued by the alpha male – at least the ones I read! As the erotic/paranormal market explodes, we’re seeing more of the alpha female/alpha male matches that offer *equal* partnerships.
They’re standing shoulder to shoulder with the hero. They’re working to create new worlds, defeat villains. And we do see the beta males, too (like Josh, I really do dislike these labels)
My G-d, we’re (writers)drilled over and over that readers do *not* want TSTL heroines and whiners!
Are there still books out there with characters like alpha apes and whimpy female idiots? Sure.
But there are also books that don’t have characters like these.
Films? Well, Hollywood has almost always been either over the top (Lara Croft) or below the brain – (Kate Capshaw in Indy)
I will not read *chick lit* books – whiny, needy, greedy characters who make me want to scream. But I’m pretty certain that that will be the cast of characters so I don’t bother.
In most books today – especially ebooks – I check the blurb, read the excerpts, yes, even read reviews and then make up my mind.
IOW, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water — you might throw away a true hero and heroine.
June 29, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I think what I dislike about alpha males is not so much that most of them are arrogant, inconsiderate gits–it’s the notion that any Womanly Woman is going to swoon at their masculinely-shod feet. P’tui!
Yes, that’s right. I was discussing Pirates of the Caribbean over on my LJ and someone mentioned that both Barbossa and Beckett were alpha male types. I have no objection to them at all as villains – they make a good villain. And from Josh’s Adrien English tales, I think Jake is a very sympathetic alpha, but that’s because you can see that it is doing him more harm than good. And I could even cope with know it all overbearing characters if all the other characters reacted as you’d expect and didn’t just let them get away with it…
Much of your description reminds me of one of Heinlein’s quotes–which I don’t have handy–to the effect that a human being should be able to give orders, take orders, cook, fight, build a house, deliver a baby, comfort the dying, etc — that specialization is for insects.
That’s it, really, isn’t it? You can’t imagine some of these heroes actually managing to live successful normal lives because they’re too specialized to be properly human. Admittedly the worst contenders I’ve seen have been in werewolf books, where their animality is part of the point, but it never seems to be part of the *problem*. It’s like ‘wow, he’s *literally* bestial! OMG Squee!’
And speaking of annoying stereotypes, if there’s anything I like less than ‘alpha males…’ Any chance you’re going to take on “bad boys?” (G)
LOL! It’s part of the same thing, isn’t it? The danger of playing with power. But yes, I – with my anti-pirate stance – probably should do a post like that. I’m not as incapable of feeling the draw of the bad guys as I am of liking the alpha males, so I ought to be able to be a bit more balanced on that one!
June 29, 2008 at 9:18 pm
To me a hero is not an alpha male. There’s so much more intelligence and self-searching involved than just “must go kill, har har har”. Overcoming fear, for example, checking all options, finding the best way, not the fastest.
Yes, and you want your hero to be someone you wouldn’t mind meeting – someone who you could admire for good qualities other than their overwhelming sexual magnetism and … um… what? Take charge-ness? I think everyone in the thread has said it best – you want someone who is a real human being with strengths *and* weaknesses. You can’t really love someone who doesn’t have the slightest human empathy or flaw.
Thanks a lot for bringing up Collingwood in this context. Today he’d probably be classified as a “pedantic control freak”; no doubt he drove many of his officers crazy. He loved gossip and had a sharp tongue; his quill at times dripped acid as we know from his letters. Not very “manly” by most people’s standards.
Yet, at the same time, he lived through all those battles, never losing his head (literally!), but he also never lost his humanity. And that, together with the ability to feel compassion, is something a hero needs and most alpha males lack. It’s very likely the main reason why I’m put off by them and consider Collingwood a classic example of a true hero. But then again, I’m biased… 😉
I think it’s one of the real delights of reading from the journals of some of those 18th Century officers. You meet men who are not phased by the most shocking conditions and the most brutal happenings in war, but who manage to remain good humoured, good hearted people with a surprising generosity of spirit and delicacy, even tenderness. I don’t think I believed the combination was possible before reading their own words.
And Collingwood is special for other reasons, in that he may have been successful in battle, but he was even more successful in diplomacy and forging enduring alliances – and then sticking by them to the end. I’m an old cynic, so it blew me away when I started to read about these guys and realized that actually, yes, heroism is possible in real life too, not just in stories.
June 29, 2008 at 9:50 pm
So the hero type evolves as the culture(s) change, grow, evolve. What the culture needs at any particular time, is reflected in the aspects of the hero appearing in our writing.
Yes, I think so. What we admire can change according to the zeitgeist. But I wonder whether, given the fact that the formula romance is so very codified, what happens is that an older hero-type ends up being perpetuated even when things have moved on elsewhere.
Hey, if we’re going to talk about bad boys at some point, can we talk about secret babies? Argggghh!
Oh, now that’s something I haven’t come across yet! I’ll have to leave that one to you 🙂
June 29, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Okay, there does seem to be some misconception about the type of heroine in m/f books of today.
Most books do not offer wimpy heroines waiting around to be rescued by the alpha male – at least the ones I read! As the erotic/paranormal market explodes, we’re seeing more of the alpha female/alpha male matches that offer *equal* partnerships.
IOW, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water — you might throw away a true hero and heroine.
Oh yes, I’m not qualified to talk about m/f romance other than to sympathize with people like Lynn – who has been put off the genre by the character types. I don’t read m/f myself at all because the power dynamics tend to make me uncomfortable. I’ve enjoyed Lee Rowan’s m/f stories, where her gentlemen are gentlemen and never make her ladies feel threatened or coerced. And I love Jane Austen, where there is an equality of minds assumed, but my squick factor is such that I don’t normally find it worth the risk to look for that. Not when the squick factor is so much less for me in m/m.
June 30, 2008 at 5:26 am
Alex said:
Of course. My mistake. It seemed as if we were using the term “alpha male” in discussing the past, as convenient modern shorthand. Whatever they were called, “alpha male” types seem to have existed, at least in the literature and the popular imagination. I felt the 18th century was a time when the ideal was changing.
Alex said:
The Romans were a very sophisticated society, much more than ours, for example. It’s the only reason, in my opinion, to cut Achilles some slack: he’s the product of a “primitive” society that valued bragging, brute force and “wrath” for inspiring prowess in battle. I don’t think the 18th century was the first time the concept of “hero” was reevaluted, just a noticeable one in our recent history, a changeover from the earlier Medieval/Renaissance ethos.
June 30, 2008 at 6:07 am
Just want to second Jeanne’s spirited and valuable defense of (some) m/f romance.
Even in the “normal” (not paranormal) historical romances there are not only equal partnerships but sometimes a more nuanced recognition that heroines can be stereotypically feminine in some ways that are appropriate for their time (softhearted, perhaps, or interested in clothes, or not athletic), but who are nevertheless thinking, intelligent, courageous and honorable people.
Certainly in the contemporary ones (which I don’t read, so am combating hearsay with hearsay 🙂 ), as Jeanne said, most publishers simply won’t accept drippy, wilting heroines because women readers won’t buy books like that.
Have you read any Jo Beverley? She writes Regency-era books and also has a series of 18th century ones. Some of her earlier books in her “Rogues” series (Regency) were excellent. Unusual plots and situations. And no, the “Rogues” were neither alpha males nor bad boys. They were a mix of different kinds of interesting heroes who had met at Harrow and formed their Society of Rogues to defend themselves against the alpha male bullies.
June 30, 2008 at 5:01 pm
So…I think the Iliad as it’s “written” is a heroic epic, not a tragedy.
Well, I suppose that depends on whose tragedy it is….the last line (“and so the Trojans buried Hector, breaker of horses” or however you want to render it”) tends to frame it for me as the tragedy of Troy rather than the tragedy of Achilles.
Alex: in that vein, I think the distinction between the Virgillian hero and the Homeric hero is a bit of a false one – Hector is fighting to protect his family and his civilisation, and in that light has more in common with Aeneas. And that’s not even bringing Lavinia into it… 😉
June 30, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Alex: in that vein, I think the distinction between the Virgillian hero and the Homeric hero is a bit of a false one – Hector is fighting to protect his family and his civilisation, and in that light has more in common with Aeneas.
It makes more sense in the book where it is specifically Achilles whom Nicolson compares to Aeneas. I think he just uses ‘Homeric’ because Achillean would be a bit odd 😉
June 30, 2008 at 5:28 pm
It seemed as if we were using the term “alpha male” in discussing the past, as convenient modern shorthand. Whatever they were called, “alpha male” types seem to have existed, at least in the literature and the popular imagination. I felt the 18th century was a time when the ideal was changing.
We were 🙂 But I didn’t feel my grasp on the subject was sufficient to be able to talk about the past in light of the modern concept. I don’t have a firm enough grasp on what an alpha male actually is in order to relate that to the heroes of the past. I do wish that someone would define the term! If it’s just ‘born leader’ then I have much less trouble with it than I do if it’s ‘dominant and domineering predator, sexually and in other ways.’
I don’t know whether the ideal was changing in particular in the 18th Century. I mean the Mallory quote above is from the 15th Century and fits Nelson perfectly (as Nelson is described by Collingwood.)
I totally agree that Achilles is a product of his time 🙂 I’m just very thankful that our time has moved on a bit since then 😉
June 30, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“LOL! It’s part of the same thing, isn’t it? The danger of playing with power. But yes, I – with my anti-pirate stance – probably should do a post like that. I’m not as incapable of feeling the draw of the bad guys as I am of liking the alpha males, so I ought to be able to be a bit more balanced on that one!”
I can see part of the attraction of pirates – particularly the way the last PotC film showed the greed of the big India companies. Really, the biggest difference between a pirate and a post captain — as far as the captured ships were concerned — was that the RN officer wasn’t likely to kill all prisoners or sell them into slavery. They both shot hell out of any ship that didn’t surrender, and stole the cargo — and for a small merchant whose livelihood was riding in that ship, it made no difference at all that one was taking it to divide amongs the crew, while the other was doing it for Honour, King, and prize money. The Navy’s rules were so bloody draconian that some men (and women) probably went into piracy for the freedom.
Not that I think piracy is a good way to make a living…
“Bad boys…” ? I know it’s romance shorthand for poooor misunderstood lads, but the bad ‘boys’ I’ve met were mostly immature, self-centered twits–the kind of jerk who’d get a girl pregnant then refuse to help her deal with the problem. I don’t see the appeal there, either. What’s so impossible about making a balanced adult seem sexy and interesting? By and large, that’s the case in RL.
June 30, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Just want to second Jeanne’s spirited and valuable defense of (some) m/f romance.
I don’t think I’ve ever said that all m/f romance is confined to the one type, or that it’s all bad! I don’t read it myself, so I consider myself unqualified to have an opinion. The alpha male in m/f books is something I know little about, and what I have encountered were blog posts about ‘how to make your hero more alpha’, ‘alpha males, why we all love them’, etc and various excerpts I’ve come across on mailing lists. I *presume* that he’s not that different from the m/m version, but I can’t speak from personal experience.
Have you read any Jo Beverley? She writes Regency-era books and also has a series of 18th century ones. Some of her earlier books in her “Rogues” series (Regency) were excellent. Unusual plots and situations. And no, the “Rogues” were neither alpha males nor bad boys. They were a mix of different kinds of interesting heroes who had met at Harrow and formed their Society of Rogues to defend themselves against the alpha male bullies.
They sound like fun! If I ever feel brave enough to dip my toe into m/f, I’ll bear them in mind 🙂 Thanks for the rec!
June 30, 2008 at 10:19 pm
You certainly hit a nerve here, Alex. I have to agree that the kind of alpha male you described is most unattractive and I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting female would find him appealing. I’m one of those who don’t really adhere to such terms to pigeon-hole men and certainly wouldn’t want to write a character based on such terminology. I hope any characters I write are more rounded and complex than that!
July 1, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I can see part of the attraction of pirates – particularly the way the last PotC film showed the greed of the big India companies. Really, the biggest difference between a pirate and a post captain — as far as the captured ships were concerned — was that the RN officer wasn’t likely to kill all prisoners or sell them into slavery. The Navy’s rules were so bloody draconian that some men (and women) probably went into piracy for the freedom.
I think PotC made a mistake in bringing Barbossa back as a hero, after his modus operandi had been shown in the first film. They could quite easily have shown the pirates as a more democratic force set against tyranny, but to do that I think they would have needed to rein in the indiscriminate bombing of harbour towns and terrorizing of young women 😀
I admit to a weakness for privateers, who have one foot in the world of privacy, but who keep the other one in civilization. It’s about as far as I can go without feeling disloyal to my navy lads 🙂
“Bad boys…” ? I know it’s romance shorthand for poooor misunderstood lads, but the bad ‘boys’ I’ve met were mostly immature, self-centered twits–the kind of jerk who’d get a girl pregnant then refuse to help her deal with the problem. I don’t see the appeal there, either.
No, but I came across an interesting article yesterday which notes that bad boys *look like* alpha males, in terms of being feared by other men, and that their lack of real socialization skills only becomes apparent when it’s too late. I particularly liked this bit:
http://www.csbruce.com/~csbruce/shyness/alpha.html
July 1, 2008 at 3:12 pm
You certainly hit a nerve here, Alex. I have to agree that the kind of alpha male you described is most unattractive and I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting female would find him appealing. I’m one of those who don’t really adhere to such terms to pigeon-hole men and certainly wouldn’t want to write a character based on such terminology. I hope any characters I write are more rounded and complex than that!
Thanks for the comment, Stevie! And yes, I can see how the categories might be useful to describe existing people, in an effort to generalize, but for a novel I think it’s essential to have something much more interesting and fully developed.
July 5, 2008 at 11:56 pm
[…] this connection, I’d like to recommend the excellent article about Brutes, Wimps And Heroes” by Alex Beecroft over on the Macaroni-blog. Quite obviously, the “hero” dragging his hands on the ground […]
December 22, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Ebook…
[…]Brutes, Wimps and Heroes « The Macaronis[…]…