Meljean Brook

…idiot that ever had a double standard.

Last night, Ugly_Hubby and I were watching The Silence of the Lambs on late, late night TV (a late night TV surprisingly and sadly free of 1-900-HOTGRRL commercials, which crack me up, but plenty of weight-loss commercials, and I wonder if those commercials aired despite or because of the cannibalism—what better time to decide to lose weight than when watching Hannibal Lecter bite someone’s nose off?) But, anyway, at the end of the movie (spoiler alert if you haven’t seen this movie/read the book), as Clarice ran around the killer’s house and basement alone, I said:

“If my heroine did that in one of my books, that would immediately make her TSTL. What is she thinking? The guy has all of the advantages: he knows the layout of the house; he’s a crazy nut-job with a penchant for making skin-suits out of chubby girls, and she’s barely out of the FBI academy; he kills her, and no one will know where either Clarice or Katherine (the chick in the well) ever were.”

And I went on, blah blah blah, about how stupid people are who go down in the basement, even if they are cops, because shouldn’t she call for backup first?—and UH said, “Would you have said that if it was a guy?”

Ugh. Because although I’d like to say, “Yes!” and my brain says there is no difference, I had to be honest with myself and admit that if Clarice had been a guy, I would never have commented on it. I would have thought, “Oh, he should have called for backup” but I would never have applied the TSTL label to him.

Arrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That pisses me off. I don’t intend to have that double standard, I don’t. And yet, I apparently do.

And this especially pisses me off because I really like Clarice’s character; there is absolutely no evidence of TSTL behavior in the rest of the movie, and yet I was more than ready to cry ’stupid’ at that one moment.

And in retrospect, perhaps it wasn’t totally stupid: after all, she was a trained agent, she needed to ascertain whether Katherine was in danger (and leaving the house might give the guy a chance to kill her), and she might be even more of a target leaving the house than inside it, where she can hide in corners and crap. I honestly don’t know what the accepted operating procedure in such a case would be (I do think she should have at least attempted to locate the phone, though).

Sigh. I know there has been discussion about a lot of readers being tougher on heroines than we are on heroes, but this…this bothers me about myself. It is one thing to forgive a guy for being an asshole easier than I can forgive a heroine for being whatever she is—but assigning different levels of intelligence to them for the same actions?

I am the veriest idiot.

*Originally posted here*

Between the discussions about realistic heroines on RTB, various blogs and SBTB I don’t have anything more to add, but something Candy mentioned in her review of Karen Ranney’s book, TO LOVE A SCOTTISH LORD, made me stop and go…whuh? Not because she was wrong, but because it was so true:

I hate adorable yet meaningless flaws, and yet they are all over the place.

Men in romances have flaws (often, it is the Hi, I’m An Asshole, And I’m Going To Treat You Like A Worthless Slut flaw) but women…well, they are quirky. Isinnit cute?

Okay, so I don’t always hate these flaws—sometimes they make me laugh, and they can be really fun. But they aren’t flaws. Flaws should be somehow linked to the seven deadly sins (but in a non-religious way). Got a heroine who is greedy? Now that’s a flaw, and if you make me understand her, and make the hero love her despite that, then I’m one happy reader. Got a heroine who is proud and arrogant? Ditto. Who gets jealous easily? Is vain? Yep. Someone who isn’t honest with herself because it is easier than the alternative? Check.

Now, I’m not talking about people who are deservedly proud of themselves, or greedy because they actually deserve to be greedy (they were starved/poverty-stricken) but are flawed to a fault. They hurt people by exercising their particular flaw—and not in a deliberate, nasty way, but in an “Oh, I didn’t realize that I was so screwed up” way. Like Oedipus, but without the nasty mother humping and the eye-gouging and the dooming all of your offspring.

I want flaws that actually have to be worked through in a relationship, or worked around, or something that makes the flaw more than just an exercise in showing how perfect the heroine is (conquering the fear of heights to play doctor with the hero). I want strengths and weaknesses—and not just weaknesses like: I’m a wimpy-ass doormat, and I finally stand up for myself at the end of the book! or, I think I look like a toad, but then I realize I’m beautiful at the end of the book! (Those are issues, not flaws—if a heroine is treated like an ugly stepsister her entire life, of course she’s going to have a skewed self-image, and hurrah for her working through that, but is that the only problem she has? Bleh.)

Fear of heights isn’t a character flaw—and I want character flaws with some bite to them.