the ask@AAR: Do we care what heroines (or heroes) look like?
In the last three recently published romances I’ve read, I’ve very little idea of what the heroine looks like. The heroes are still chiseled with piercing blue/green/grey eyes, abs like an egg carton, long silky black/blonde/chestnut hair, and sinfully full lips. The heroines are, well, I don’t know because the authors didn’t describe their physical appearances other than their heights and maybe their skin color.
There are things I like about this. Heroines don’t need to be gorgeous with lengthy lashes, ample busts, and tiny waists and the world has always been overly fixated on women’s beauty rather than their brains. It’s much more erotic to read about a lover who’s focused on the connection they share with the person they’re steaming up the sheets/carriage/back seat with than one who’s sexual interest is spurred by looks alone.
And yet….
I’m a visual person and I like to have a sense of what characters and the worlds they inhabit look like. Reading about a lover’s vision of his/her dreamboat is a way to better understand that person. If a heroine is curvy and that turns the hero on, I like knowing that. It also seems somewhat unbelievable to me to have a hero who has zero thoughts about how the heroine looks.
What do you think? Have you noticed this? Do you like it? If so, why and if not, why not?
Interestingly, I prefer dark haired men, and have begun to notice that I don’t remember the male character has lighter hair, my brain automatically reverts to my dark hair preference in my brain, so much so, that I’m surprised when a later description mentions golden or fair hair. But they are always well built and endowed in books. Though I recently heard more women actually prefer the Dad body, so…
As an author, I find myself detailing less and less about my characters, because they are never going to look the same way inside a reader’s head as they look inside my head anyway. Unlike contemporary authors I don’t have the option of saying “He looked like Sean Bean.” So I say “long dark hair” and let the reader fill in exactly how long and how dark the character’s hair is. Same for tall, and things like plump/curvy.
Editors are not fond of spare description, though. They often want more detail, more color, more exact measurements (eg, instead of “He was a tall, muscled guy” they would like to see “He was a good six-foot-four, two hundred twenty pounds of potent masculinity.”
I for one find it a plus when authors don’t compare likeness to actors/singers/athletes/etc, unless it’s necessary for the plot.
At best it comes across as unimaginative and lazy (like the author couldn’t be bothered writing the description, so instead they’ll just let you know which celebrity they used on their moodboard), but it can also be downright off-putting if the reader doesn’t care for the celebrity. Even if it was a character you’d otherwise like, you’re now stuck with that image.
For someone like me, who stopped watching TV decades ago and averages fewer than one movie viewed per year, the celebrity name-dropping not only comes across as lazy, it fails to convey any image! I can’t call to mind any faces for most celebrity names.
Interesting. I like detail but it’s hard to do well. And in romance, it’s often cliched simply because so much of the story is about specific attraction.
I don’t care how the hero is described. I either visualize a 40 year old Sean Bean or Richard Armitage from North and South. I have very basic desires.
Jennifer Crusie provides one of the best examples of a description that tells you everything you need to know without a bit of actual description. Compared to Old Skool romances where the hero and heroine are described in excruciating (and eventually boring) detail every few pages (her blue/azure/turquoise eyes, his black/raven/midnight hair), it was a pleasure to read Crusie’s description of Phineas, the hero of Welcome to Temptation, who “looked like every glossy frat boy in every nerd movie ever made, like every popular town boy who’d ever looked right through her in high school, like every rotten rich kid who’d ever belonged where she hadn’t.” We know he’s handsome but details of hair color, height, etc. aren’t needed after that description.
And in Madam Will You Talk by Mary Stewart, IIRC the hero says to the heroine soon after they’ve met, “All right, you beautiful bitch, what have you done with my son?” I’ve no idea what Charity looks like other than her beauty must be striking indeed that he comments on it despite his anger.
I do like to visualize characters in my head, so a little physical description is helpful, but I generally do not like it repeated over and over. I think there are many stories where it is not essential to describe a character’s looks or relative attractiveness in detail. That being said, if a character is deemed physically attractive or unattractive, then that impacts how people relate to them, which can be an important piece of information. This is fresh in my mind because I just finished Joanna Chambers’ Restored, and the hero’s beauty is a critical part of the story. In it, Kit Redford is a gorgeous former prostitute. His beauty has been a blessing and a curse in his life, and there are some interesting reflections on this throughout. He has been a commodity, literally sold to the highest bidder, again and again. Even in the present day, when he no longer sells his body and owns a successful business, people still note his beauty before anything, and that impacts how they treat him. The other hero, Henry, is mentioned a few times as being handsome, but his looks do not define him. He has to deal with his own objectification of Kit. I thought Chambers did a nice job of exploring these issues.
I don’t need a lot of physical description. If the author doesn’t provide it I can easily conjure up an impression based on the character’s thoughts, dialogue, clothes, occupation, etc. In fact I have to deliberately ignore a lot of descriptions in contemporary romance because I do not find tattoos, manbuns, beards or ridiculously muscled bodies attractive. But the rare author can overcome these prejudices if the character’s heart and mind is appealing enough; I’ve been loving the audiobook of Penny Reid’s Beard Science despite picturing Cletus with that long hair and bushy beard.
That’s a good point – because too much description of things that don’t appeal to some readers may be off-putting to them (I don’t like tattoos or bushy beards either.) It’s important to strike the right balance; enough to enable readers to get a general picture, but not go over the top.
I must admitt I hate tattoos. I would never buy a book where a heavy tattooed hero is on the cover.
One tiny tattoo normaly not visible is acceptable
Same – it’s a total turnoff for me.
Ditto.
I tend to avoid books with heavily tattooed men not because I dislike tattoos–all things in moderation!–but because those covers are on books with heroes that don’t call to me. I’m not a big fan of motorcycle clubs or security firms (Carolyn Crane’s Associates series to the contrary.)
I’d agree with that, as well – I’m not drawn to MC books either. I’ve read some security firm books where there have been tattoed men on the cover, but I’ve read them despite the covers, rather than because of them!
I don’t mind a few tattoos, but I’m not a fan of beards except for very well trimmed ones. I have a habit of stubbornly picturing bearded heroes as having no beards, and ignoring any evidence to the contrary. :-)
On the subject of beards, that was one of my many annoyances with the Harlequin “Historical” I reviewed at AAR, A Blues Singer to Redeem Him. Of all the time periods where an otherwise fashionable hero could get away with sporting facial hair, 1920s America was not one of them. Not only were beards completely out of style at that point, I learned through cursory research that there was actually a brief but strong anti-beard movement post-1918 flu epidemic due to beliefs that they were unsanitary. In fact, the only references I could find to bearded men of that period and place were those hiding facial scars from smallpox and one gangster who was camouflaging knife scars.
In light of that little tangent, I wonder if the author and editor had so much of a thing for beards that the blatant anachronism didn’t bother them. It must not bother other readers either because I haven’t seen a single online complaint on the subject yet.
I don’t.
Thinking more about this–especially after having read this very interesting opinion piece–makes me suspect that many romance authors are embracing the third wave feminist idea that to discuss women’s bodies and/or style is anti-feminist, anti-intellectual, and something people who understand the realities of bias in our culture do not do.
Third wave feminism doesn’t play well with much of the traditional expectations in romance which is heteronormative, beauty-positive, and focused on a family-centric culture.
So, if you like your romances au courant, you probably like a description free(r) romance. If you’re more old school, you may not.
I always had the preferences I had, about descriptions, really, no change there, except for noticing more how things are written, and what the message underlying seems to me.
… and if 3rd wave feminism means we can objectify the men & their looks, but not describe the women, which seems the current trend to me, then I am looking forward to the 4th wave ;-)
I prefer a physical description of both characters. At a minimum, I want eye and hair color as well as general body build. I like the information presented in a natural way and I agree that it doesn’t need to be repeated over and over. I think in a relationship, there has to be physical attraction/chemistry. I don’t feel that is the most important part and I do want to see the romance develop based on attraction to other attributes (intellect, humor, sweetness, kindness, etc). However, I do want to know what each member of the couple finds sexy about the other and to feel that there is both physical and emotional attraction. For that, I need to know what they look like.
I also really, really hate it when the person on the cover doesn’t match the description inside.
What a fun topic for discussion, with great comments so far! Here’s my take on character appearances:
Outside of romance and erotica, I really don’t need to know what the characters look like unless it’s vital to characterization or plot. For example, if a character has a facial scar that makes her feel self-conscious, that’s vital information. Other than something like that, what a protagonist looks like is usually better left to the reader’s imagination. See Elmore Leonard’s writing rule #8: “Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.” I can’t remember which other author said it, but going into too much detail makes it sound like you’re giving a description of a suspect to the police. I agree. If your character is a detective used to scrutinizing others’ appearances, okay sure. Otherwise, it’s advisable to rein it in a bit.
Having said that, I do expect a little more physical description of characters in romance and erotica because those are both visually-oriented genres as opposed to, say, a literary ramble about a bitter drunk’s existential crisis. In the latter case, eye color and body build probably aren’t going to be as important to the story. Again, it’s better not to overdo it, but it helps to know what the hero and heroine (or any combination thereof) find physically attractive in one another.
This is just a hunch, but maybe some authors avoid the hero’s point of view when it comes to the heroine’s appearance due to the genre’s female-centricity. What I mean is, I don’t think it would go over too well with the general romance readership for a hero to think, “Hot damn, she’s stacked!”
As for physical descriptions of the hero, I’m beginning to wonder about the lack of creativity in m/f. Is Mr. Six-and-a-half-feet-tall, inexplicable-six-pack, stoic, square-jawed-wonder really the only kind of attractive man in existence? Sometimes, I feel like the only variation Romancelandia Prince Charming is allowed is in his eye and hair color.
Haha! The thing is, I’ve read just that kind of description many times in romance novels, or something very similar. So I’m not sure it bothers too many readers.
A lot of romance books seems to have heroes and heroines with flawless bodies in both m/f and m/m books.
Well, it seems I stand corrected… ;-)
I just finished a m/f friends-to-lovers romance. Early in the book, the hero is thinking about the heroine and says, “She has a perfect set of tits and a great ass,” and I was like, really? Do we need our heroes objectifying the heroines at quite that level, with that language? In all fairness, the heroine swooned about the hero’s abs, pecs, and biceps—but the terminology was not quite as crude. The story ended up being a pretty good romance, but it took a while for me to warm up to the hero because of his rather coarse expression.
I guess that’s a YMMV thing. I like coarse thoughts in a hero’s head because I think many men really do think that way! Plus I have an incorrigible potty mouth!
My personal preference :
I do not need to know what H/h look like – I pretty much ignore any description as in ” she was a lovely waif of a girl with huge blue eyes and long curly dark hair”, and find heroines who think about “how I like to be a long-legged woman with my hair flowing to my backside” extremely self-centered. I also dislike the obsessions with the chiseled jaw and the six pack, especially if the heroine keeps thinking about them whenever she thinks of the hero.
However, I really like when the hero is mentioned to be attracted to a certain visual (her big dark eyes) or turned on by a view of her backside, or her hair flowing around her breasts or some such, and the same for the heroine – if his (chiseled) jaw turns her on and she keeps stroking or licking along it as part of their erotic play, then that works very well for me – that is how a visual through H/h eyes works well for me and makes me believe the attraction.
Of course, if the looks are pertinent, as for instance in a story about learning to love yourself, or dealing with some sort of special context around looks, then yes, things change.
To me it matters, particularly if the character’s personality and life experiences have been affected by their appearance. One heroine I recently really enjoyed reflects upon how her mother spoke of her body when she goes to wear a bathing suit alongside her thinner friends, and how her mother would have discouraged the two piece suit.
Later on there is a cute scene where she tells the hero he needs to know she wears big panties that cover her whole behind- and she’s not going to start wearing thongs for him because she’s the one who has to wear them. Her physicality and how she was treated as a result affects her life and personality.
Plus, I just like to have an image of the hero and heroine. It doesn’t have to be incredibly detailed, but the basics of size, looks and coloring are appreciated.
A thoughtfully written description when a MC first meets and considers the other MC can be a good thing and enhance my reading experience. I agree with others here who find over-exaggerated, totally silly and unrealistic descriptions really off-putting. Just a little hint, a thought-provoking inference is enough. I also agree that covers that in no way match the author’s descriptions are annoying, almost insulting to both the reader and author.
PS – Like Lil, I am also on continual look-out for emerald green eyes!!
The first time I ran into this was Anne Mallory’s 2010 “Seven Secrets of Seduction.” She writes so well that I didn’t realize there was never really a physical description of the heroine and went back to see if I’d missed something. I drew a mental picture from the nuances of her behavior. Wonderful. I wish she were still writing.
Me too. I love her work.
I tend to imagine the way they look despite the author’s description, and I’m somewhat startled to have an author mention the hero’s blond curls when I’ve been picturing him with dark hair. And I ignore the six-pack abs because I actually find that kind of off-putting. On the whole, I prefer to have the hero described by the heroine and vice versa. At least that way it seems important.
I have to add that I am intrigued by the number of green-eyed heroes and heroines in Romancelandia. Especially when the eyes are emerald green. I’ve never seen anyone with emerald green eyes, but I keep on the lookout.
Or violet eyes – they were equally ubiquitous at one point.
This reminds me of Penny Reid’s Beard Science where Cletus thinks Jenn’s eyes look purple then realizes it’s all in relationship to lighting/background – he basically sciences an explanation for it!
I once read an article on Heyer’s love of grey eyed heroes! I hadn’t really noticed the trend until then. True grey eyes, not just pale blue, are pretty rare.
During my long life I’ve only once met a woman with violet eyes. They truly were remarkable. But as I said only once in decades!
The worst is the “Violet” or lavender eyes. Even Elizabeth Taylor’s eyes weren’t really purple.
I’ve known several people with varying shades of green eyes in real life, but I’ve yet to ever see a real pair of “Emerald” eyes.
I knew someone, when I was thirteen I really liked an older boy who had black hair and eyes of a deep green tone similar to emerald.
In any case, I don’t think my old crush would have matched a romantic hero: he was of a very slim build without a single drop of muscle.He is the culprit that im attracted to men with lean physique without muscles.
It annoys me when the cover shows people who don’t match the author’s description.
Other than that, I don’t think I really mind unless the description is part of a poorly written book.
I’ve seen authors distraught because the publishers couldn’t even bother getting the hair color of the couple right on the cover at times.
I’m reminded of my brief Amazon review of Carla Kelly’s Wedding Ring Quest:
“First, ignore the misleading cover. This book is not about a happy, healthy young couple going for a spring jaunt in their buggy. It’s about a spinsterish not-quite-30ish woman who lives a stifling life with her relatives and an almost-40-year-old weathered sea captain who has been physically, mentally, and emotionally damaged by years of warfare at sea. By the way, the man on the book cover has what appear to be two good legs; Captain Rennie (our hero) has 1.5, having lost part of a leg below the knee during his time at sea. The captain uses a peg leg to get about.
Also, contrary to the book cover, the story takes place in the dead of a Yorkshire winter–snow is falling, temperatures are glacial–and the H/h happen to meet at an inn…. I can see how readers might be shocked and disappointed by this gentle, somewhat serious story, given that the book cover promises something totally different. It’s almost like the Harlequin editors said, ‘Let’s see how many things about this cover we can get wrong.’ “
I like at least a general idea of how the MCs look. However, too much detail about a character’s appearance is almost as annoying as none at all. I really prefer it when we see how a hero/heroine looks through the eyes of the other MC (although, again, let’s not get to an obsessive level of physical description). One thing that bothers me in first-person narration is a character cataloging their own physical appearance as if they’ve never seen themselves in a mirror before. There are more subtle ways to communicate how a character looks.
Oh, God, that whole “I brushed my curly auburn locks” thing drives me nuts!
IMHO it just shows poor writing skills. If the author can’t weave some descriptive language naturally into the the writing and needs that info dump, then the writing probably isn’t going to be very good.
Kristen Ashley is the number one author guilty of this in my experience.
The first thing that jumped into my brain when reading this post was that this is one of the reasons I’m not generally a fan of 1st person, especially 1st person present tense with a single POV. First person present sounds like someone narrating their daily existence and it’s too often awkward and boring. And the only way authors seem to know to give a description of the POV character is to have them look in a mirror and catalog their looks. How many times have I read that?! At least alternating POVs give some room for observing both characters in a non-awkward way.
I’ve noticed in the (relatively few) contemporary m/f romances I’ve read recently, the POV character is mostly the female lead. In m/m, I see more double POVs in the first person books.
I haven’t noticed the lack of descriptions in books written in 3rd person.
I like there to be some degree of physical description, although I hate it when it’s overdone and we’re reminded of the H/h’s physical attributes every other page.
But as much as I notice excessive description, I notice when it’s NOT there, too, and I find it frustrating – I’m not someone who visualises a character as an actual person.(see all those gif laden reviews at GR!) so I like a few hints as to what they look like and in a romance, as you say, it’s important to know what the leads find attractive about one another – and it’s rather unbelievable that the characters wouldn’t at the very least notice what the other looks like, especially if they’re meeting for the first time. Of course, it’s important to be attracted to something other than looks, but the outward appearance is the first thing we see about another person, and in most cases (I’d assume), being drawn to what you see is a natural precursor to finding out more about someone.
I’m glad you mentioned the gif-laden reviews on GR. When I first started looking at GR reviews, I was amazed at how visually-detailed some of the reviews are. I do wonder, however, whether some reviewers have actually paid attention to the descriptions in the book for which they’re posting images. Ainsley Booth’s HATE F#%K features a “curvy” heroine and not a single gif in single GR review for that book showed a “full-figured” women. I kept wondering if I’d read a different book.
I HATE those gifs. I can’t stand the blinkiness of them.
And the first time I looked at a GF review for an m/m romance, I thought I’d accidentally accessed a gay p*rn site! Absolutely nothing left to the imagination there—lol.
Gifs give me a headache.I don’t like them in FB posts, either.I skipthe GR reviews with gifs. I can’t take them seriously.
Same here – I usually skip them. Sometimes I’m intrigued to see who that reviewer pictures as X character, although a lot of the time I see the image and think “huh?”
To me it’s the review version of handwriting with little hearts dotting the i’s.
I’ve seen an author say recently- even in art she specifically commissioned from artists of her curvy female character, not a one has drawn her the size the author describes. They have all thinned her down.
That’s just damn wrong.
Mostly agreed.
Interestingly, sometimes, even when the author has described a character, I can’t really translate the description into an actual mental image. And it’s annoying, because there are times when I need a fairly clear mental picture of the M/M or M/F as I’m reading.
In that spirit, if someone can point me to a photo or painting of an actual man who looks like Sir John Hartlebury (The Gentle Art of Fortune Hunting), I’d appreciate it. :-)