Hellion Heroines

Andrea here, musing today about heroines . . .or more specifically, hellion heroines. Murder at Kensington Palace, my latest Wrexford & Sloane Regency mystery released this week, and as the creation of a book is quite a journey, from the first glimmer of an idea to the final pages being ready for a reader to begin turning, I always like to sit back and reflect a bit on the process.

It’s great fun constructing the plot and weaving in enough twists and turns to keep people guessing (though as a total “pantser”, I confess that I’m sometimes in danger of tripping over my own two feet!) However, for me the real heart of crafting a story is creating the characters—how to give them challenges and vulnerabilities, how to make them both flawed but appealing enough that readers will cheer for them to overcome all obstacles. And in a series, where the protagonists carry over from book to book, the characters have to grow—as we all do through our journey through life.

In reflecting, I’ve been thinking about my female protagonist, Charlotte Sloane, and how it is that I always seem to write strong, unconventional women. Even as a child, I chafed at the rules concerning what girls could and couldn’t do. As a 9 yr. old, I remember standing with my nose pressed up against a chainlink fence watching a Little League game and wanting desperately to be out on the field with all the boys. But no—girls weren’t allowed to play. No matter that I was the best baseball player in the neighborhood of either sex! I remember asking my father why girls weren’t allowed to play baseball. He turned scarlet, and mumbled something about it being because we might injure our breasts. To which I replied, with impeccable nine-year-old logic, “But Dad, I don’t have breasts!” (Thank Heavens girls today can play sports with the boys!)

So, clearly my motivation in writing hellion heroines is deep-seated. And today, as history is slowly being rewritten to include all the stories that didn’t fit into the narrow, traditional narrative of the past, we’re discovering so many rich and inspiring stories of extraordinary people who until now were relegated to the shadows—many of them women.

In creating Charlotte, I gave her a backstory—which very slowly comes to life in the series. Very early on in life, she made a momentous decision to give up everything in order to have the independence to shape her own life. She struggles with poverty and loneliness. She lives with fear that if her secret is discovered—the fact that she makes money drawing satirical cartoons of the high and mighty—that she’ll be left destitute. She’s strong and brave, but she’s also wary and hard-edged. She has a right to be cynical about the world.

Now, I fell in love with the Regency era through reading Jane Austen. And during my recent musings, I realized how much of the nuances of Pride and Prejudice deal with how little choice women had in life other than to marry. While we all roll our eyes at Mrs. Bennett, her fears and hysterics about marrying off her daughters were, at heart, terribly real. They have a home, but none of the girls can inherit it. Only boys get the goods! How terrifying that must have been for families. Women had no way to make their own way in life other than marry or work in servitude or very menial jobs. Austen’s comedy of manners deals with so many foibles of human nature. But the societal restrictions really resonate as well.

The restrictions governing women were, of course, true in so many eras. But as I write in the Regency, its rules and restrictions are of particular resonance to me. At times I wonder whether I’ve gone too far with Charlotte and her independence—it takes incredible courage to challenge convention. But the more I research Regency women, the more I discover stories of extraordinary individuals who DID dare to live life on their own terms, regardless of the consequences. Ada Lovelace, Lady Hester Stanhope, Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Anning . . . the list goes on and on.

There are many Regency books I love that feature heroines who don’t feel compelled to be rebels. I’m just not going to be writing one of them! I guess it’s simply not in my DNA. Another snapshot from my childhood is one of the earliest photos my mother took of me—it’s Christmas morning. I’m four years old and have, like my older brother, received a cowboy outfit, complete with hat and six-shooters. The look of pure bliss on my face makes me laugh when I look at it now. Clearly I knew even then that boys were allowed to do far more interesting and adventurous things than girls. So, I decided to break the rules! (I’ve never really stopped.)

So what do you think about unconventional, offbeat women heroines, especially in historical novels? Do you find them jarring? Do you question whether they could get away with some of the things they are doing? How far is too far?

Comments

[Quantum]

"I remember asking my father why girls weren’t allowed to play baseball"

How things have changed! I recall the USA doing well in the last women's world cup soccer competition ... a game where the chest can be used a lot to control the ball and the goalkeeper uses all of the body to stop the ball entering the net.

Another example might be the English Nicola Adams doing well as a boxer in the Olympics and now earning a living as a professional boxer.

Seems there are no no-go areas left for women!

In Regency/historical times I imagine the conventions were strictly adhered to in society circles but away from high society in remote villages I'm sure that 'unconventional' behavior was common. The problem of earning a crust would dominate existence and the 'posh' ladies of the Ton would seem an infinity away. So I reckon that outlandish behavior would increase linearly with distance from the ton.

Anyway, I love unconventional offbeat heroines in historical fiction. Especially talented women forcing their way to the top in male dominated professions. Charlotte Sloane is a splendid example. 😊

[Lil Marek]

Speaking of baseball, when I was 11 or 12, what I really wanted to do when I grew up was play shortstop for the Brooklyn Dodgers, I knew this was impossible, of course. Not because girls didn't play baseball, because in my neighborhood (I'm older than you, so this was pre-Little League) all games were pick-up and anyone could play. It was impossible because I was a lousy ball player. That there were things girls couldn't do never occurred to me because no one ever told me that.

So unconventional heroines don't strike me as impossible or even unlikely. The only thing I object to is heroines who confuse throwing a temper tantrum with strength, and mercifully neither you nor any of the other wenches do that.

[Andrea Penrose]

How true (thankfully so) that perceptions of what women can do physically have totally changed! I remember when we weren't allowed to run long races, as we were far too delicate. (And yet men had no problem with women working from dawn to dusk in the fields!)

I think you're very right about offbeat behavior being more common in rural areas. For the upper classes, being a widow brought more freedom (Hmm, one can't help but wonder if that hastened many terrible husbands to their graves!)

Thanks so much for the kind word on Lady Charlotte. Glad you enjoy hellion heroines!

[Andrea Penrose]

LOL,Lillian! A girl can dream—and that's the important point! I played pick-up baseball in the neighborhood too. (I hope kids still get outside after school and do that!) I didn't know girls couldn't do certain things, because I was never told that either. So when I bumped into such rules, they really stung.

[Lucy]

I don't have a problem with offbeat and unconventional: what I do have a problem with is a historical heroine using 21st century reasoning, while getting 21st century reactions from the people around her (who mostly seem to be of a rather liberal bent, unless they're intended to represent unenlightened opposition).

For instance, a favorite novelist of mine put her heroine and heroine's maidservant into quite a modern feminist-sounding dialogue over the heroine's desire to wear a split riding-skirt. It was charming, and fairly well-executed, but in too many ways, it didn't ring true. There was no sense of historical grounding, nothing about seeing Lady-so-and-so do it, nothing about "I saw this portrait of Lady Such-and-such," or "I read this," or "I heard that." No shock or reaction from the maid, who was actually encouraging her. No negative reaction from anyone who saw her ride that way in public. They all, supposedly, admired her for it.

Now, this was, after all, only a story, and intended to be lighthearted and sweet (which it was). But in plain point of fact, ground-breaking women have never been unanimously admired for doing anything, and they've always had a steep price to pay. They face questions about their morality and their sanity. The hero is NOT bursting with pride unless he's so unconventional and eccentric himself that he doesn't give a rip. (Think possibly Charles Fox.)

So in general, I like a heroine to be plausible within her historical context--her father was a widower who taught her to run his business--her aunt was a friend of Mary Wollstonecraft--her brother is a liberal crony of Mr. Fox--etc. She's going to get her ideas from somewhere, and it won't be a time travel machine. So for a woman who grows up in a society where men are regarded as the masters, and women as intended for subservience, what plausible influences will form this unconventional rationale?

In short, if you do it, make it make sense. :-)

[Lucy]

It seems as if behavior would logically loosen with distance, but in fact, we have good reason to believe that it didn't. Rural areas were more apt to be conservative in their values (just as they are today). The fine and fashionable ladies came in for plenty of censure and ridicule: they weren't setting the mores of society; they were held by many to be doing the opposite, and teaching girls to be good for nothing!

With that said, economics did have an effect: a poor country girl did not have a maid to attend her, and might be in greater danger of being accosted by a stranger. Women went out to work in houses where they were at the mercy of predatory masters; and others took up businesses where a father, husband or brother had left work behind. In general, it was not a freer existence, but a less-protected one; and a woman who made an independent living needed to keep the respect of her community by her careful behavior.

[Kareni]

Thanks for yet another thoughtful post, Andrea, and for the charming photo and shared family story.

I do like a hellion heroine as long as she seems realistic.

[Quantum]

Good points Lucy. Immoral behavior was frowned on fairly universally I think. However in out of the way country estates I suspect that young ladies could, for example, wear trousers and ride horses without side saddle ... even bare back, without creating scandal. Inquiring minds might also conduct scientific studies. Mary Anning was mentioned above and is a good example. She lived in a fairly remote seaside village and pursued her fascination with fossils without incurring criticism. It was only when her work attracted leading biologists of the day that she ran into trouble, struggling for recognition of her work. I think that a lady from the Ton would have struggled to justify such an interest from the very beginning, and had to battle continuously against prejudice.

[Lucy]

I think in Mary Anning's case, what might have been considered a pardonable eccentricity among her neighbors (so long as she behaved herself in a moral way), brought on censure when it grew noticeable enough to be perceived as competing with men in the same field.

By that token, if we're talking about what passes unnoticed, or less noticed:

A young country lady's behavior would be noticed everywhere, by everyone--her father's tenants, laborers, village dwellers, etc. It might be excused on the grounds that her father permitted it, and/or his wealth permitted it, but the greater likelihood is that it would cause talk of the most unpleasant kind. One would expect her female relatives to be dead (no governess), her father to be something of an irreligious freethinker who obviously condoned his daughter's attire, rode with her, hunted with her, and so on.

Even then, on the most retired of estates, social life went on between neighbors, and those families equal to hers in station could hardly fail to know what she was doing and to disapprove of it. Servants talked: everybody talked, all the more so when a young lady's behavior did not meet moral norms (and this was a moral norm, not just a social one).

Many people would call her morals into question, not only because of the Biblical prohibition against women wearing male attire, but for rebelling against a woman's proper place--showing a disposition that was immodest, shameless and defiant. Further, her father's religion and morals would come into question for permitting it, whether his tenants openly dared to criticize him or not.

A married woman under her husband's countenance--if he were rather liberal and freethinking--might have a better chance of "getting away with" such a thing, but might still find herself not perfectly popular with her neighbors, and open to considerable criticism, voiced or unvoiced.

So, no, we can't say that it never happened, but because of the tightknit and censorious ways of rural English society, it would in all probability have resounded much more shockingly than many of us can recognize now.

As for the other issue: did wealthy ladies enjoy more freedom from criticism or less?

I don't think it's possible to answer that question empirically. We have a point in 18th century France where wealthy women featured powerfully in the intellectual "salons" of the day. Early in the same century, in Germany, ladies were conducting experiments with static electricity as a sort of fashion. I would guess that in a wealthier woman's world, much depended on what was or was not "the fashion," and how much she relied psychologically on the approval of the people around her (assuming that she was independent in her wealth and not obliged to obey a husband, father or brother.)

[Mary Jo Putney]

Andrea, that picture of you encapsulates your life! The jock, the trailblazer, the iconoclast. You looked exactly like yourself even at age four. *G*

[Sue McCormick]

I am a quiet rebel. I never rebelled out loud, but I did manage to go my own way.

When my first husband left the family, leaving me as a single working mother, my job changed from classroom teaching to becoming a textbook copy-editor. Still in education but not in the classroom. The Missouri legisature was preparing a law limiting a women's hours in factory jobs. No overtime for "frail" women!

The hypocracy of this set my teeth on edge. I was salaried, there was no limitation on my hours (but my salary wasn't all that large). Both my jobs had involved homework. For a salaried person this means unpaid hours. But women on hourly wages were "protected" from earning more money. Women were being subjugated!

[Andrea Penrose]

Lucy, you raise really good points on rural societies tending to be conservative in values. But I do think that these are all generalities, and my experience in research is that there were more examples of "offbeat" behavior that history books would have you believe. I agree with Quantum, that a girl might have worn breeches while riding with her brothers, and while it might have raised eyebrows, if she was from a solid family, and didn't engage in outrageous pranks she was probably accepted by her neighbors.

And there's plenty of evidence that daughters helped run their father's store or small businesses in ways that an aristocratic woman could never have done.

So I'm willing to think girls had more freedom than we might think

[Andrea Penrose]

Very excellent summary, Lucy. And I agree with most of your points. It WAS hard to break the rules, and one did pay a price. However, my point, human nature doesn't change that much over the history. I believe there were enough women who chafed under restrictive rules and challenged them—some more quietly than others. But as we now are digging deeper into history, and the untold stories, we're uncovering more examples of women who defied convention, no mater the cost.

[Andrea Penrose]

Thanks, Kareni. And you've on a basic point for every story. As a reader, t you have to believe in the characters and world in which you're asked to enter. Otherwise you aren't going to stay with the story.

[Andrea Penrose]

LOL!
Guilty as charge!

[Andrea Penrose]

Huzzah for you, Sue.
Yes, the hypocrisy in many rules governing women was and still is astounding. Women couldn't compete in sports because they were too "frail" but men had no problem with them doing backbreaking work in the fields or factories.

There's been great progress. . . but I have to say the recent attacks on freedoms women now take for granted is truly frightening and disheartening.

[Quantum]

Lucy, I think that you are describing 'most likely' situations. We are however dealing with unconventional offbeat heroines in very unusual circumstances. In other words in the tail of a probability distribution. It is my contention that this tail is likely to be more extended as we move further from high society. It is of course for the author to create the circumstance leading to detailed behavior patterns, but getting away from the norm creates much potential for exciting and interesting novels. I think that Andrea does an excellent job of this with the Charlotte Sloane series

[Lil Marek]

Sue, I think I recall some state (Arizona?) had a law "protecting" women that said women couldn't be required to lift anything weighing more than 20 pounds. I guess the legislators had never encountered a two-year-old!

[Alice]

When I was young in the UK, I went to an all girls school where we weren't allowed to do any sport like hockey as it was considered 'unladylike'! My brothers seemed to have a lot more opportunities and fun at their all boys school. My sons and daughter went to the same school and all played hockey. I was so happy for my daughter but had to try not to be jealous at the same time!

[Mary M.]

I remember those days, Sue. As a university graduate who was salaried, the hourly-waged women often shunned me. As a female, men treated me as a secretary. I had to sub on the switchboard (yes, one of the old plug type switchboards). Bad idea, as I did passive-aggressive and there's no telling how many calls I dropped!

[Andrea Penrose]

Quantum, I love the term "tail of a probability distribution"!

Yes, there are general rules for every era, and the standard narratives of how people behaved usually follow those. But I truly think reality always reflects that the rules weren't followed as rigidly as one is led to think. Diaries, journal, letters—the real-life accounts show that people, especually women, as they had more rules to follow, were always rebelling. albeit often quietly.

I'm very open to offbeat heroines in any er because I'm pretty sure they existed!

[Andrea Penrose]

Ha, ha, ha! Yes, the rules really were absurd compared to real life!

It's still a battle. It's frightening that so many men still feel they have a right to decide what women should and should not be able to do.

[Andrea Penrose]

Love it!

[Andrea Penrose]

Thank goodness those attitudes about women and sports have changed! Yes, I still feel deprived that I never got to play Little League, or have a girl's soccer team for which to try out.

[Annette N]

I could kick a football farther than my brother. I did it in my bare feet. He got a college scholarship for kicking a football.

I am not against unconventional heroines. But...

Just as in our recent times, some girls have been skilled at sports and felt they were treated unfairly because they could not participate in "boys" sports.

I believe since the beginning of time there were some women who were smarter than, more skilled than, and more capable than. And those same women were not always able to do the things they wanted to do, no matter how skilled.

But, I have read some books where the heroine lived in an entire world of men who appeared so much less.

I realize we live in the era of "superiority of all women". But, I do not want to read books which belittle all men as inferior beings. We did not like that place in the world. We believe it was unfair. So, doing it to the other sex seems rather silly to me.

I would prefer that women and men appear in books as human beings who see one another as human beings with talents, intelligence and abilities. Most people have gifts to be shared with the world and appreciated by all.

Shoot fire, I would like it if in my present real world we all would do that too.

[Quantum]

Andrea, any mathematical or scientific training will involve Poisson and Gaussian probability distributions. They are part of the natural world. When plotted as a graph they look roughly like a mountain where the summit roughly describe the most likely event and the lower slopes (or tail) describe rarer events .... apologies if this is all familiar!

"reality always reflects that the rules weren't followed as rigidly as one is led to think."

Absolutely agree. Nature produces a spread of characters ( possibly described by a probability distribution) and the more adventurous will always be pushing boundaries. Your offbeat heroines belong in the tail and I have no doubt at all that they existed.

Are there rules limiting what romance authors can write without causing protests? If so I guess you may be an offbeat author in which case you have my admiration and applause! *LOL*

[Jane]

Andrea, although I never wanted to play baseball with the boys, I recently read a very good book about a girl who did want to, in 1957 -- Out of Left Field by Ellen Klages. Although this is a children's book, it really contains a number of very thought-provoking points.

And to answer your question, I do enjoy reading about heroines who want to break the rules, maybe so I can vicariously enjoy being a bit of a rebel myself!

[Andrea Penrose]

I do love how math and data models are part of the clockwork universe that so intrigued the Newton and the 17th century scientists. Alas, I have no training in them, but appreciate them conceptually, and find them fascinating.

As rules in writing romance . . . I think today's authors keep challenging them, and with the diversity in readers, I think you can find a niche where your story will fit.

[Andrea Penrose]

A very thoughtful post. Annette, and I agree with you that making the men all stupid and unpleasant is just as offensive as brainless heroines in a book. Your point about appreciating each other as individuals with unique talents and gifts is a lovely one.

(And I have to say, I'm VERY impressed with your football prowess!)

[Andrea Penrose]

Thanks so much for the heads-up on the children's book, Jane! I will look for it.

I think we all enjoy being a bit of rebel, at least vicariously!

[Michelle H]

I read historical romance and historical mystery because like the TV dramas (I don't watch anymore) of old, the story arc takes you from problems presented in the beginning to problems solved by the end of the hour. Yes, I absolutely love to read of an unconventional heroine, and yes, I agree the writing makes or breaks that scenario. The drama of a novel, dark serious history or ripping good yarn is something I can dive into, but then leave and let go. The headlines of today and recent injustices drag my spirit down such that I become very depressed.

I read author/book/historical subjects blogs and I completely agree that there were more 'unconventional' women in history than we would believe possible, whose stories are being uncovered all the time. Those real stories are a little harder to forget and let go.

And really, I don't think there are many historical romances out there that are centered around a completely conventional heroine. That role usually is given to the heroine's friend. Circumstance forces us all to be a little rebellious or unconventional.

[Teresa Broderick]

I grew up a real tomboy. I have three brothers and there were no girls my age where we lived so I joined in everything or got left behind and lonely.
I like a heroine who defies convention but not be over the top about it. I do like Charlotte Sloane. She's the proper mix.
Good luck with the book Andrea. I LOVED it!!

[Karin]

I love unconventional heroines, and the heroes that love them! Where some authors fail is in minimizing the way society might likely react to the heroine's behavior. But your books don't have that problem-Charlotte does what she wants, but she has to do a lot of it in secret. Look at all the 19th century female authors who used a male nom de plume!

[Andrea Penrose]

I had only brothers, too, and was the same way!

And thank you so much for the lovely words about my book!

[Andrea Penrose]

Thank you, Karin High praise indeed, coming from you!

I think it's really important to do your research and make sure your unconventional heroine does fit into her time. But I truly think that's not so hard—women were always finding ways to break the rules and you can find examples.

[Andrea Penrose]

A story, like a TV show does indeed have a beginning and an end, which does offer resolution—which is a great satisfaction! I think one reason mysteries (as a opposed to hard-boiled crime) resonate with readers these days is because the good guys and justice usually prevails.

I agree that many historical romances and mystery involve a bit of rebellion in the heroines. It gives them "character" and adds tension and interest to a story.

[Pamela DG]

I love unconventional heroines, but as a historian, I have to remember they are the exception to the rule. The Upper Class were less than 1% of the population, so if we lived in the Regency Period, we'd have to scrape and scramble for a decent income. We'd all in one way or another serve the Upper Class.

I like Charlotte Sloane. She uses her innate intelligence and talent to make her own way. She has help from her well-placed friends, but chafes at it. It was interesting to see how she was able to move into a better neighborhood, but she will have less freedom as a result. Wrexford, in particular, will have to remember his manners in order not to compromise her new standing. Such a challenge!